Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:44:36 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUID permission on Bash script Message-ID: <20090829134436.4461d8c9@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4a98d375.W9fcoTOIN1DqRk/3%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <beaf3aa50908280124pbd2c760v8d51eb4ae965dedc@mail.gmail.com> <87y6p4pbd0.fsf@kobe.laptop> <20090829022431.5841d4de@gumby.homeunix.com> <4A98A8A1.7070305@prgmr.com> <4a98d375.W9fcoTOIN1DqRk/3%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:29 -0700 perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Michael David Crawford <mdc@prgmr.com> wrote: > > It's not that setuid shell scripts are really more > > inherently insecure than programs written in C. > > Actually, absent some careful cooperation between the kernel > and the interpreter to prevent a race condition that can cause > the interpreter to run (with elevated permissions) a completely > different script than the one that was marked setuid, setuid > scripts _are_ insecure in a way that _cannot_ be fixed by any > degree of care that might be taken in the writing of the script. > > Check the hackers@ archives. It was discussed a little over a > month ago. But is isn't that the same issue that Matthew Seaman was saying was fixed years ago (in the link I gave before), and is described in the follow-up: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg185145.html That's entirely in the kernel, it doesn't require interpreter support.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090829134436.4461d8c9>