Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:21:30 -0600 (CST) | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: Capabilities |
| |
"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es>: >"A month of sundays ago Jesse Pollard wrote:" >> "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es>: >> >"A month of sundays ago Jesse Pollard wrote:" >> >> There really shouldn't be 32K privileged programs, and I suspect that 255 >> >> would be sufficient. >> >Reminds me of a certain statement about 640K. >> >> yeah it does... but at least I didn't say "255 should be enough for anybody". >> >> I have done counts on the total number of setuid programs (IRIX) and it was >> under 100. Some of these programs really didn't rate being setuid anyway so >> they lost the setuid/setgid bit, leaving only 55. > >Unfortunately this is the same reasoning. Back then there weren't any >home computers with more than 100K of ram. > >If you make these capabilities safe and useful, then they will be used.
Yes, they will be used. But the intent is to be used by system/security administrators and not by the everyday user. If there are 32765 (or 255 for that matter) privileged programs, then I would be willing to guarantee that the security on that system is nonexistant. The ability to audit the security activities of programs is a must. I have enough trouble with just the 55 I have. If I find any others on the system, they get removed.
Capabilities themselves are not safe. They are used to make a system safe. The process of making the system safe requires validation of the programs being given extra privileges. Otherwise, you have no assurance that security policies are being enforced. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
- 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/
| |