> 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/