[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposed change to setre[ug]id()
Followup to:  <>
By author: (Stephen R. van den Berg)
In newsgroup:
> "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> >There are two problems; one is the one you pointed out, and the other is
> >programs which drop the setuid bits, thinking they are then secure, and
> >then start doing unsafe things like using gets() and statically-sized
> >buffers on the stack.
> Hmmm..., indeed, and then construct a setuid() system call.
> Well, in that light, the current code looks just fine as it is.

I have only one comment: dlopen().

Just because you're in the same process (no exec) doesn't mean the
code comes from the same file.

If we want to emulate HP/UX's setresuid() facility, then let's
implement a setresuid() call [maybe that should be setresfuid()], but
don't break the current setreuid() implementation -- ESPECIALLY not
since it would make secure programs suddenly insecure!


PGP public key available - finger
I don't work for Yggdrasil, but they sponsor the linux.* hierarchy.
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Bahá'u'lláh
Just Say No to Morden * Save Babylon 5:

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.071 / U:1.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site