I'm just a data point of one. My Samba history is as a user since before 2.0.
Shortly into the 2.0.x series I was asked by locals (a point and click lot) to setup Swat so they could manage Samba. I did so and they still f'ed the configuration. That was and remains my only experience with Swat. I won't miss it. On 02/17/2013 04:02 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
As most of you would have noticed, we have now had 3 CVE-nominated security issues for SWAT in the past couple of years. At the same time, while I know many of our users use SWAT, we just don't have anybody to maintain it inside the Samba Team. Kai has made a valiant effort to at least apply the XSS and CSRF guidelines when folks make security reports, but by his own admission he isn't a web developer - none of us are! There are many other parts of Samba that have not been substantially maintained in years, but few have the level of security exposure that SWAT does (most are bits of library and utility code that we apply elsewhere, but which just quietly does it's own job). The issue isn't that we can't write secure code, but that writing secure Web code where we can't trust the authenticated actions of our user's browser is a very different modal to writing secure system code. Frankly it just isn't our area. Therefore, it was suggested on a private list that we just drop SWAT. I want to start a public discussion on that point, prompted by http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700729 which reminds us why we didn't apply the specific CSRF hardening we applied in 4.0.2 to SWAT in the first place. Thanks, Andrew Bartlett
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
