Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Apr 1999 22:13:09 +0100 (GMT) | From | Matthew Kirkwood <> | Subject | Re: ext3 to include capabilities? |
| |
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Fred Reimer wrote:
> From: Matthew Kirkwood <weejock@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk> > > On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > 1. Put capabilities information in the executable header. > > > > > 2. Mark the executable setuid root. > > > > > 3. Have the kernel check for #1 if #2, and prefer #1 if present. > > > Old security scripts program has root privileges. It is wrong, it has > > > only subset. But it is wrong _the right way_. Old scripts still see > > > the "bad scenario". > > > It is no-loose situation. > > It's a no-lose situation until you start using the new features to add > > privileges which weren't there in the first place. > > But why would you go back to an older kernel if you are using all this > great functionality? Similarly, is anyone using the ext filesystem? I > didn't think it was even maintained anymore. Why would you begin to > rely on the great new features in ext2 if you can't use them in ext? (I > don't actually know what the differences are, but figured everyone else > does so it would be a good comparison). Why would you want to use the > new threads or clone system call? You sure can't run programs that rely > on it on a 0.96 kernel! > > Needless to say, I don't think this is a very persuasive argument...
Yes, but your rebuttal applies equally to the earlier claims of "no-lose".
I'm sure that I'm not alone in preferring things to break than to silently become insecure.
Matthew.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |