[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: capabilities in elf headers, (my) final (and shortest) iteration

> > >>> ...and works only for some types of files (how about a webserver
> > >>> written in Perl?).
> [...]
> > {Shrug} Perhaps somebody can suggest some way that capabilities can
> > have meaning for a script, any script if it comes to that?
> A script in Unix is just another random way to write a program that does
> what I want. Nothing special there. Note that today's scripts are (almost)
> undistinguishable from binary, compiled programs: They may carry the same
> permissions (execute permissions for whom, even S[UG]ID bits (not on all
> Unices, but several honor them)). If some scheme can't do the same (at least
> in principle) for capabilities, it is fundamentally flawed. No "all
> capable" interpreter should be needed, as this is a _huge_ security risk,
> the kernel might as well endow this particular process with the requested
> capabilities, and nothing else.

Why is all capable interpretter huge security risk? Look at
suidperl. It drops priviledges _then_ it looks at code, so overflow in
its parsing routines is not going to help you.

PS: Any all capable file is huge security risk. I do not see why
interpretters are any worse :-).
I'm really Pavel
Look at ;-).

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:0.076 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site