Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:15:48 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How much security should ldconfig enforce? Message-ID: <200007270615.IAA16104@grimreaper.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000726193613.jdp@polstra.com> ; from John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:36:13 MST." References: <XFMail.000726193613.jdp@polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Just kidding -- this is about ldconfig. Last night I committed > some security-related changes that somebody submitted to me. The > changes make ldconfig refuse to pay attention to directories which are > world-writable or not owned by root. In the commit message I also > stated a desire to strengthen it further by disallowing group-writable > directories. I thought that was good :-) > 1. It could allow anything, just like it did before I made my commit. Not a good idea, but... > 2. It could strictly enforce secure ownerships, groups, and > permissions -- i.e., keep last night's commit and add group > writability checking too. ...your correspondent had a point, however. > 3. It could default to strictly secure but accept a command-line > option to relax the constraints. And an rc.conf knob could be added > to control whether or not it was strict at boot time. Could it relax constraints on a per-directory basis, so that folk who want a shared lib dir with *this* privelige *here* can do that? M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007270615.IAA16104>