[lkml]   [1997]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: security warning
    Isn't this JUST the kind of thing that belongs as a switch in /proc/sys

    On 16 Dec, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
    >> One problem is it follows it for a lot more than it used to. Following symlinks
    >> on creation is bad. It causes a lot of "symlink traps". 2.0 stamps on the
    >> symlink and tough the hacker loses.
    > No, 2.0.x also followed symlinks for create(), I'm fairly certain. It used
    > to be pretty painful to do, actually, but others did it, and I think
    > people even pointed to programs that wanted it done.
    > But yes, 2.1.x would tend to do it more aggressively for other things than
    > just create().
    >> I'll have a look at the stuff if its supposed to be easy to fix 8)
    > It really should be a matter of just making a 1 (follow_links) a 0.

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.019 / U:37.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site