From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7301 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Harald Becker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Busybox on musl is affected by CVE-2015-1817 Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:11:51 +0200 Message-ID: <551BA847.3040609@gmx.de> References: <20150330053150.GA484@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150331234810.GN6817@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150401074116.GN23636@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1427875948 21621 80.91.229.3 (1 Apr 2015 08:12:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:12:28 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7314-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Apr 01 10:12:08 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YdDks-0005FK-Va for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:12:07 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7197 invoked by uid 550); 1 Apr 2015 08:12:05 -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 7179 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2015 08:12:05 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 In-Reply-To: <20150401074116.GN23636@example.net> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:3VUhguEz9+luDMP6emG9fwBbmWDCV8oacWfw8lYzA05wwKY4STy 9AjJHGD+hD5AYZsK7dDIh3insXfdtoLNJcVOOuojCQYDWN2reYZfCULMtwjyA/9NLK3LDJe CIcmVx46KAkQZrdEkYShV5TmjCJOdY7VWymo2uF90+3Ey52Bj3MkjTVyISKL/3ZofQ2VeCa NoGI8pAUqEweEe8DK6Usw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7301 Archived-At: Hi ! On 01.04.2015 09:41, u-wsnj@aetey.se wrote: > Suid is a very old and nowadays quite redundant tool, mostly holding > ground due to its "simplicity" (say, compared to talking to a daemon) > and to the tradition. Seen from a different perspective, it is from the > pre-network epoch ("the computer is the universe") and enforces among > others hardcoded paths - which is a PITA for reusable and globally > placed software. IMO suid and sgid has there advantage over complex communication with separate running daemons, but there is one topic, which is missed by so many discussions about this: There is a big difference if you talk about suid *root* programs or other suid usage. The former is definitely very dangerous and should be used with extreme care (I think this is the case we are talking about), the later use may even be used to drop privileges (not to raise), or to temporarily hop to the privileges of a different user (may be allowing access to some files only by using specific commands). When used with care and as intended, suid and sgid is a nice feature, but nowadays there are too many Unix novices, who misunderstand or misuse this, punching big holes in every security concern. >> I think it would be worth it >> even if it doubled the size of the ping utility (which it does not). > +1 ACK +1 -- Harald