[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ece0d580609120938g6db67adai6ba08a16f4f13af7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:38:14 -0700
From: coderpunk <coderpunk@...il.com>
To: "Joe Feise" <jfeise@...se.com>
Cc: "Gerald \(Jerry\) Carter" <jerry@...ba.org>,
full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable
On 9/11/06, Joe Feise <jfeise@...se.com> wrote:
> coderpunk writes:
>
> >> The standard recommendation is to never compile
> >> the kernel as root.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Which obviously doesn't help you when a non-root user edits the
> > kernel, you compile it as 'jerry' but still have to install it as
> > 'root'. You're still hosed.
>
> Geez, of course not. Unpacking the kernel as non-root honors umask.
> Problem solved.
> It would help to 'info tar' before posting...
That assumes a proper umask. The kernel source should not depend on
the end user's umask being setup properly.
I'm having a hard time understanding why so many people seem to be
resistant to setting proper permissions in the kernel tree source.
This is the single most important piece of source on a system, it
should be as secure as possible before being released.
Yes, you can mitigate those risks by doing things as non-root (not
everyone does), you can assume a proper umask (not everyone's is), or
you can just fix the permissons at the source and the problem goes
away.
.cp
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists