Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug

From: Warner Losh (impat_private)
Date: Fri Jul 10 1998 - 13:07:54 PDT

  • Next message: Theo de Raadt: "Re: ncurses 4.1 security bug"

    In message <9807091617.ZM3971at_private> Matt Evans writes:
    : a.jar() and b.jar() are going to both get called before other_stuff(),
    : but you have no way of knowing in which order a.jar() b.jar() get called with
    : respect to each other.  does jar() need to drop privs ?  i hardly think so.
    : what happens when "class lazy_programmer{};" comes along ?  must all of its
    : constructors also "drop privs" as well ?  if every function "drops privs"
    : before main() ever starts, and every function does so in some random order, i
    : fail to see how you can create a useful set[ug]id program.
    
    And you have no way of knowing if they get called in such a ways as to
    put libc at risk.
    
    I see two solutions to this problem:
    
            1) set?id programs need to be modified.  They need to come up
               with their privs disabled and explicitly enable them for
               the work they need to do.  This is definitely a change in
               the traditional behavior of how set?id works.  It would buy
               a few things at the cost of a few other things.  I'm
               surprised that I've need seen references to this in the
               literature.
    
               The up side is that chmod 4777 /bin/sh no longer gives you
               a setuid shell.  Code would have to be more explicit in its
               use of privs.  This is likely a good thing.
    
               The down side is that chmod 4777 /bin/sh no longer gives
               you a root sheel.  ALL setuid programs must be changed to
               run on a system like this, or they will fail to operate.
    
               This would fix the class of problems that are characterized
               by code running with too many privs to access shared
               resources.  This seems like an interesting enough set of
               problems to go after.
    
               I suspect that you don't want to do this in crt0.o because
               a roughe program could easily bypass that check.  Kernel
               support seems a must.
    
               Doesn't do squat about the problem of buffer overflows...
    
            2) have an option to ld that refuses to allow any global ctors
               to be called.  This way you could have some safety in the
               writing set[gu]id programs that are written in languages
               that allow this, or call library routines that allow this.
    
    Comments?
    
    Warner
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:03:10 PDT