[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50053984.4070105@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:08:04 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: libdbus hardening
On 07/17/2012 12:02 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:12:09PM +0200, yersinia wrote:
>> But exists in other linux libc implementation similar more secure
>> alternatives to getenv ?
>
> I'm not aware of other Linux libc's having this, but I proposed
> __secure_getenv() (as well as OpenBSD'ish issetugid() or/and
> __libc_enable_secure) for addition to musl. (No, I did not write any
> code for this. I merely told Rich and heard back.) I may be biased,
> but I think that musl is the main alternative to glibc on Linux now.
Note that GNU libc will likely change the name to secure_getenv.
Upstream does not want to document __secure_getenv as-is.
See the discussion here:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-07/msg00213.html
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
