Re: Proposal of new group

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski <maniek@beer.com>]

On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski:
> > > But the source might contain a buffer overflow exploit, or another
> > > exploit. Yes, I wrote the code myself, and there is even a comment
> > > in the code about running setuid in a special group. But in my experience
> > > _every_ setuid program has at least one hole, no matter how careful
> > > you are. Avoiding setuid programs (esp. setuid root) is important.
> > 
> > shutdown accepts no user input as far i know so how user can do
> > buffer overflow?
> 
> Well, if you really think that way, you are certainly _not_ the
> person to make something setuid root. Do you follow BugTRAQ? Know
> about l0pth security advisories? CERT? www.rootshell.com ?

Im certainly not a cracker.
 
> Think of command line arguments, environment variables .. that's
> all 'user input'

This (command line arguments, environment variables) is
what i checked in manpages. But theres nothing about
such things (i though about these when i said userinput
such things as additional scripts etc. would be surely
security holes)
 
> > Simple enough suid programs doesnt have always holes.
> 
> 95% of them do, just because they are simple.

I meant these programs which are not useless-features-ful
Such program should exit whenever something is going
not as it though it will be going.