bugtraq - Re: GNU tar and the setuid bit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200508070011.45261.baikie@ehwhat.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:11:45 +0100
From: David Watson <baikie@...hat.freeserve.co.uk>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: GNU tar and the setuid bit

On Saturday 06 Aug 2005 4:22 pm, David Watson wrote:
> (By the way, -o is broken in version 1.14 at least, but --no-same-owner
> works.)

Sorry, I just noticed that that last comment was entirely misleading! In all 
versions, using --no-same-owner without --no-same-permissions *will* cause 
the setuid and setgid bits to be preserved even where the owner or group has 
been changed to root (i.e. where a different UID or GID was specified in the 
archive), as will using -o (in 1.15) without --no-same-permissions. The -o 
option is 'broken' in 1.14 (and possibly in earlier versions) in that it 
simply fails to enable the intended behaviour (in fact it enables the exact 
opposite, being equivalent to --same-owner).