Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:10:46 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> Cc: FreeBSD Security Issues <FreeBSD-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: access() is a security hole? Message-ID: <20021008221046.GV495@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20021008212335.GF309@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> References: <20021008183227.GC309@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0210082024200.11104-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> <20021008212335.GF309@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-Oct-08 17:23:35 -0400, The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> wrote: >Also, this means that the stat() manpage should also contains a >similar section about its non-fd incarnations. I disagree. access(2) is specifically designed to allow setuid/setgid programs to validate access rights based on the real uid/gid - but is virtually impossible to use safely for this task because of the inherent race conditions. stat(2) and lstat(2) can be used unsafely but accurately fulfil their documented functions without creating a false sense of security. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021008221046.GV495>