Re: setuid vs. setgid (was Re: Anonymous Qmail Denial of Service)

From: Len Budney (budney-lists-bugtraqat_private)
Date: Fri Jan 08 1999 - 12:46:10 PST

  • Next message: Gene Spafford: "Re: Wiping out setuid programs"

    Never thought I'd be posting to bugtraq, but:
    
    Darren Reed <avalonat_private> wrote:
    > On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
    > > Venema further claims that ``a set-uid posting program cannot guarantee
    > > user identification.'' That claim is false. The user id is provided by
    > > the standard UNIX getuid() system call.
    >
    > Just to be pedantic, Venema is correct...If I find some other avenue
    > to obtain a different uid...getuid() will...thereafter fail to
    > identity correctly which user is sending the email.
    
    Of course. If you log into my workstation as me, it will be
    _impossible_ to tell who did it. If you spoof my English well enough,
    you might even fool *me*. That's irrelevant. Short of divine
    revelation, getuid() is the best you can do _portably_, _today_, on
    _UNIX_machines_.
    
    > When all email is cryptographically signed...
    
    [A moment of silence] Yes, we all long for that day. That day is not
    today.
    
    Len.
    
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Len Budney                 |  Premature optimization is the root of
    Maya Design Group          |  all evil.
    budneyat_private            |              -- Prof. Donald Knuth
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:28:11 PDT