Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: Article on basic secure shell-script programming
- To: tlug@example.com
 - Subject: Re: Article on basic secure shell-script programming
 - From: Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>
 - Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:10:23 +0900
 - Content-Disposition: inline
 - Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 - Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 - In-Reply-To: <20010612173431.F28383@example.com>; from jq@example.com on Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 05:34:32PM +0900
 - References: <20010612173431.F28383@example.com>
 - Reply-To: tlug@example.com
 - Resent-From: tlug@example.com
 - Resent-Message-ID: <zNgVBD.A.9NF.VydJ7@example.com>
 - Resent-Sender: tlug-request@example.com
 - User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i-jp0
 
I was under the impression that some flavors of the linux kernel actually ignores the suid bit on a script file automatically, NetBSD does. As he noted it is more or less impossible to write a secure script, but one posibility that he didn't cover is the case where the called program allows you to escape to shell: ie #!/bin/sh vi /bin/passwd once inside vi you can just shell escape and boom root shell. I imagine this would effect any interactive program inside an suid script via ctl-z though I can't say without testing. I guess the moral is avoid suid as much as possible, and never use it for a shell script. //Matt
- Follow-Ups:
 
- Re: Article on basic secure shell-script programming
 
- From: Jonathan Q <jq@example.com>
 
- References:
 
- Article on basic secure shell-script programming
 
- From: Jonathan Q <jq@example.com>
 Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Article on basic secure shell-script programming
 - Next by Date: Re: Article on basic secure shell-script programming
 - Prev by thread: Article on basic secure shell-script programming
 - Next by thread: Re: Article on basic secure shell-script programming
 - Index(es):
 
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links