Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:49:23 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lpd security check for changed-file vs NFS Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990818174328.78404B-100000@shell-2.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <199908182237.PAA49807@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :For the general case (eg the code checked into the system), the check > :needs to remain enabled. Anything else is insecure. > : > :Warner Oh, absolutely. However, one of the reasons people use an operating system they have source to is to make it work for them. > > I have to agree... whenever one starts discussing weird, esoteric > workarounds one inevitably introduces security holes. I really think > just disabling the -s option may be the best solution. It is apparent that I was unclear. What I meant was use the fstat test for local files. For NFS mounted files, don't use the test, since it doesn't work, and don't allow the the -s option. (Better would be to accept, and ignore the -s, perhaps producing a warning?) David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.990818174328.78404B-100000>