Re: So-called "remote exploit in pine"

From: peakat_private
Date: Fri Feb 12 1999 - 12:53:16 PST

  • Next message: shaman: "mc & Segmentation fault"

    On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Pine Development Team wrote:
    
    > While one could modify Pine to guard against the particular exploit
    > permitted by the mailcap entries in question, it is very difficult to
    > conceive of a truly safe "paranoid mode" other than disabling parameter
    > substitution entirely.  However, we suspect most people will find it far
    > easier to remove any unsafe entries from their mailcap configuration file.
    
    A truly safe "paranoid mode" would be to refuse to execute the command
    if the substitution could lead to any undesired effects--i.e. if any of the
    substituted values contains a suspicious character. This could break some
    functionality (but in fact, strange characters should never appear
    anywhere save from %{boundary}) but you can always show the command to the
    user and ask him/her. Well, lusers would lose anyway...
    
    Of course, a real solution would be to pass the information using a
    channel that is not a subject of that much automagical interpretation as
    the raw text of shell commands. Environment variables, perhaps? Anything
    but the dangerous RFC-1524-Appendix-A(?) way.
    
    
    --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak  [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
    "NSA GCHQ KGB CIA nuclear conspiration war weapon spy agent... Hi Echelon!"
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:34:24 PDT