@André

> Like a text editor that is used to edit /etc/passwd or /etc/group will 
> "filter" malicious intentions when saving the file?


How you edit the files is irrelevant. /etc/passwd is interpreted by openssl. 
That is relevant. You clearly didn't get the point.
> And if I 'edit' /bin/ls to do the equivalent of 'rm -rf /' it will happily do 
> that.

That's another story. You were comparing the content of /etc with QML files in 
/lib, and I replied to that.

> The fact that something is a 'text' file does not make it different, 
> permissions make a difference.

True, but this discussion moved specifically to Linux, while what I mentioned 
in the first place was Windows, which is sadly still the most used platform in 
the world.

@Konstantin

> Exactly the same situation exists with binary plugins of Qt. Anyone with 
> write access to plugins directory can put malicious code in plugin at it will 
> be executed by Qt.

As if writing a shared library is the same thing of editing a text file with 
minimal JSON/JavaScript knowledge...


________________________________
Da: André Pönitz <[email protected]>
A: Massimo Callegari <[email protected]> 
Cc: Qt Development ML <[email protected]>
Inviato: Sabato 8 Luglio 2017 20:22
Oggetto: Re: [Development] How is Quick Controls 2 deployment meant to be ?


On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 06:00:23PM +0000, Massimo Callegari wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 11:24:56AM +0000, Massimo Callegari via Development 
> wrote:
> 
> >> 2) Security ? There is none.  If you deploy an application using a 
> >> TextField control with
> >> echoMode: TextInput.Password, one can easily add some trivial JavaScript 
> >> code to the
> >> comfortably reachable QtQuick/Controls.2/TextField.qml file and somehow 
> >> display/log a
> >> password.  In general, an end user can seriously mess up an application by 
> >> changing a few
> >> text files.  I'm also wondering how Linux distributions can accept this. 
> >> In my KDE Neon
> >> distro I've got /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/qml/ full of QML files that 
> >> I can edit and
> >> compromise my system.
> 
> > I'll not argue about the others, but this here is nonsense. Anyone who can 
> > edit
> > /lib normally can also edit /etc etc. 
> 
> 
> I disagree. The nonsense, instead, is comparing configuration files with 
> source files.
> Config files are usually parsed by an application, which (hopefully) filters 
> malicious intentions.

Like a text editor that is used to edit /etc/passwd or /etc/group will
"filter" malicious intentions when saving the file?


> QML files instead, are executed by the application no matter what.
> As long as "edited" QML files have a correct syntax, the QML engine executes 
> them.

And if I 'edit' /bin/ls to do the equivalent of 'rm -rf /' it will happily
do that.

The fact that something is a 'text' file does not make it different,
permissions make a difference.

Andre'
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Reply via email to