Re: chroot bind?

[nic@plumtree.co.nz]

Just two questions:

i) Is there any reason why you decided to include the named binaries in
the chroot?  

There is no need for them to be there, since named does the chroot
internal.  In fact this might represent a security hole.

Consider some manages to break named and get access to the chroot
enviroment.  The manage to upload a trojaned vesion of the named binary
somehow.  The server boots and the system is wide open.  

This _might_ create a false sense of security.  


If chroot chroot ;) was used (from an external location to the chroot) or
named was called say from '/use/sbin/named -t /var/secure-bind' then of
course this is not an issue.  Since the binary that creates the chroot
is not in the chroot itself.



ii)  Is there a particular reason to use /var/secure-bind rather than
say /var/named which seems to be some what of an informal default.

I'm going to ask on the FHS mailing list about their thoughts on chroot
enviroments and how it might fit in FHS policy.



Nicholas