From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5387 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general,gmane.linux.distributions.alpine.devel Subject: Re: Re: cups debugging, continued...ugly patch Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:14:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20140701011455.GI179@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20140629194829.GA1994@newbook> <20140630001201.GA14838@newbook> <20140630012830.GA16088@newbook> <20140630020311.GD179@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140630043512.GB16088@newbook> <20140630053426.GC16088@newbook> <20140630070353.GG179@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1404177322 553 80.91.229.3 (1 Jul 2014 01:15:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:15:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-5392-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jul 01 03:15:21 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X1mfH-00024g-Vo for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:15:20 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 1556 invoked by uid 550); 1 Jul 2014 01:15:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 1545 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2014 01:15:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5387 gmane.linux.distributions.alpine.devel:2026 Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:43:25PM -0400, James Cloos wrote: > >>>>> "RF" == Rich Felker writes: > > RF> Of course binding a reserved port like this is a serious security > RF> smell -- it sounds like they're trying to facilitate port-based > RF> authentication, which is unsafe if used for anything except localhost. > > If it is for the lpd protocol, there are (or at least have been) systems > and printers which only accepted print jobs via lpd if they originated > on the lpd port. Or maybe it was if they originated on a <1024 port. > > I have a vague recollection of bug reports for cups in the early days > about that. Yes, this sounds plausible, but those print servers/printers are highly insecure already and should really be fixed to use proper authentication. It's also something of an issue that cups lpd even has permissions to bind reserved ports for outgoing connections, since this means it is retaining root permissions past startup... Rich