On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski: > > > But the source might contain a buffer overflow exploit, or another > > > exploit. Yes, I wrote the code myself, and there is even a comment > > > in the code about running setuid in a special group. But in my experience > > > _every_ setuid program has at least one hole, no matter how careful > > > you are. Avoiding setuid programs (esp. setuid root) is important. > > > > shutdown accepts no user input as far i know so how user can do > > buffer overflow? > > Well, if you really think that way, you are certainly _not_ the > person to make something setuid root. Do you follow BugTRAQ? Know > about l0pth security advisories? CERT? www.rootshell.com ?
Im certainly not a cracker. > Think of command line arguments, environment variables .. that's > all 'user input' This (command line arguments, environment variables) is what i checked in manpages. But theres nothing about such things (i though about these when i said userinput such things as additional scripts etc. would be surely security holes) > > Simple enough suid programs doesnt have always holes. > > 95% of them do, just because they are simple. I meant these programs which are not useless-features-ful Such program should exit whenever something is going not as it though it will be going.
