On Friday, October 07, 2005, at 10:28AM, Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sheesh. > >I have found the developers to be extremely responsive and concerned. Generally I agree. >And I wonder how I would react if I developed a piece of software, >then found other folks trying to expand the functionality and then >bitching because it doesn't work as expected. Nobody's been bitching. It's true that snitchCTL was intended to expand the functionality of LS. However, I'd say it does exactly what is expected. It can use GUI scripting to allow temporary or permanent rules. It can edit the configuration file directly and then use GUI scripting to accept the new rules that LS detects have been added by a 3rd party. And finally, it can bring down LS to facilitate unrestricted access. I'm pretty happy with what Matthieu has cooked up and for basic uses it's more than adequate. The only thing close to bitching would be the disappointment that these security holes exist. And here we're not bitching. Both Matthieu and I brought this to the list as a means of pointing out the vulnerability (which has been used before in Opener, and I don't care if Opener was just a script that was never in the wild as a virus, it's a proof of concept and ignoring it outright is poor security) to the users and asking for it to be fixed. >For all of you wonks out there that just *have* to have terminal >access, get a life. Or write your own. It's just very trying to watch >all this squabbling and worse, the general attitude towards the >developers. As I explained in my original post, the key is that LS as it currently exists is not secure. Securing LS is important. My secondary point was that a command line interface does not compromise the security of LS and thinking that it does is a poor understanding of the permissions and user divisions of *nix based OSs. I can understand not wanting to add a CLI for various reasons including it not being a priority. Any attitude I give the developers (I don't think I have so far, it hasn't been my intention anyway) would be the result of claims that the command line is a security risk. Such a belief exhibits a great misunderstanding of the security tenets of *nix OSs and Mac OS X. >Lay off. Write your own. Or use the GUI. Would it kill you? No, but as we've said the reason for wanting a CLI is because sometimes using the GUI isn't possible. >Let the flames begin. Because the same folks bitching are the same >folks gonna flame me. Hand in hand. I'm not flaming or bitching. Actually, I'd say you've been the one to start any problems. I've now been called a "whipper-snapper" and "wonk" without any provocation towards you at all. Keep it on the issue at hand and I'd be happy to again lay out my reasons and explain how the LSDaemon contains vulnerabilities and how a command line tool is not inherently a security risk. >Michael Spencer >A satisfied- and respectful of others' work- user. -- -- arno s hautala /-\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- _______________________________________________ Littlesnitch-talk mailing list Littlesnitch-talk@obdev.at http://at.obdev.at/mailman/listinfo/littlesnitch-talk
