[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg-statoverride vs. suidmanager



On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 09:31:12AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> If new packages ship suid binaries and the old suidregister is being
> used, there is a window where binaries will be suid even if the admin
> has turned off those permissions, and we should not allow that.

Some more possibilities:

	* have dpkg 1.7.x conflict with suidmanager <= 0.45, suidmanager
	  0.46 depend on dpkg >= 1.7.x, so that suidmanager is upgraded
	  along with dpkg. the new suidmanager could, perhaps, register
	  all its settings with dpkg-statoverride.

	* have fallback code so that packages will try to use suidregister
	  if dpkg-statoverride's not available so that at least the
	  window where a binary is suid that shouldn't be is kept to
	  between unpacking and configuring, rather than expanding to be
	  permanent

	* have packages that ship binaries suid conflict with suidmanager
	  <= 0.45, so that suidmanager and hence dpkg are also upgraded
	  if it's installed. if suidmanager's not installed, the admin's
	  evidenly happy with having all the binaries suid anyway.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
                       -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001

Attachment: pgpM6JzkBC2CP.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: