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