[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: capabilities in elf headers, (my) final (and shortest) iteration
Hi Brandon.

>>> Not that I really care one way or the other about capabilities,
>>> just wondering if anyone has really thought this through before
>>> posting "it's up to the interpreter"

>> {Shrug} Perhaps somebody can suggest some way that capabilities
>> can have meaning for a script, any script if it comes to that?

> My inclination is that if a script needs capabilities, you
> should use a wrapper executable. I don't like setuid scripts, I
> don't like set-capability scripts for the same reason.

I've always agreed with the BugTrax comment I saw aeons ago that
pointed out that scripts are subject to so many security holes that
they should NEVER be given extra facilities. For this reason, I have
no sympathy at all with any argument for giving extra rights to
scripts in ANY circumstances, and certainly I've yet to meet a valid
reason for doing so...

Best wishes from Riley.

| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.064 / U:7.444 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site