Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:58:47 -0500 (EST) | From | System Administrator <> | Subject | Re: odd chown difference between 2.0 and 2.1pre kernels |
| |
On 11 Jan 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <cistron.199901110125.UAA24076@rushlight.kf8nh.apk.net>, > Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <allbery@kf8nh.apk.net> wrote: > >In message <19990109215152.C32046@kitenet.net>, Joey Hess writes: > >+----- > >| On a 2.1pre4 machine: > >| root@kite:~>ls -l foo > >| -rwsrw-r-- 1 root joey 0 Jan 9 17:13 foo* > >| root@kite:~> chown root.root foo; ls -l foo > >| -rwsrw-r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 9 17:13 foo* > >+--->8 > > > >GAK!!! Security flaw here, methinks. chown should unconditionally clear > >setuid and setgid. >
Forgive my stupidity, but under 2.0.x i always considered the setuid loss on chown a flaw. I, personally, feel it should keep the setuid bit. If you're chowning something YOU own, setuid'd to you, why take the bit off?? Am I missing something trivial here?
-Tony .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-. Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer admin@intergrafix.net Intergrafix Internet Services
"The best way to predict the future, is to invent it." http://cygnus.ncohafmuta.com http://www.intergrafix.net .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |