Ben Hutchings writes (Re: severity for bugs in ignoring TMP/TMPDIR?):
A similar change has been implemented
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Roadmap/KernelHardening#Symlink_Protection
and will probably be included in wheezy.
Interesting. That approach protects the buggy programs
Russ Allbery writes (Re: severity for bugs in ignoring TMP/TMPDIR?):
You could probably use strace to find problems by looking for an
open(O_CREAT) of a file in /tmp that doesn't look like it's
mkstemp-created (ending in six random characters) and doesn't use O_EXCL.
You'll get some false
On Feb 13, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
The rule would be that if:
* A file is being opened in a sticky directory
* The file is going to be created by this operation
* O_EXCL was not specified
then the syscall fails with EPERM.
This should be easy to implement as
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 13, Ian Jackson wrote:
The rule would be that if:
* A file is being opened in a sticky directory
* The file is going to be created by this operation
* O_EXCL was not specified
then the syscall fails with EPERM.
This should
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 12:40 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Russ Allbery writes (Re: severity for bugs in ignoring TMP/TMPDIR?):
You could probably use strace to find problems by looking for an
open(O_CREAT) of a file in /tmp that doesn't look like it's
mkstemp-created (ending in six random
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 22:07 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 13, Ian Jackson wrote:
The rule would be that if:
* A file is being opened in a sticky directory
* The file is going to be created by this operation
* O_EXCL was not
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:44:38AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Based on a quick grep of /usr/bin/* I expect you are correct.
If $TMPDIR is not set, /tmp is a reasonable default, so I'd expect a *lot*
of matches for '/tmp' in programs with correct behaviour.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
If $TMPDIR is not set, /tmp is a reasonable default, so I'd expect a *lot*
of matches for '/tmp' in programs with correct behaviour.
I get the impression that directly hardcoding /tmp/ usually indicates
that safe temporary file/dir functions
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
If $TMPDIR is not set, /tmp is a reasonable default, so I'd expect a
*lot* of matches for '/tmp' in programs with correct behaviour.
I get the impression that directly hardcoding /tmp/ usually indicates
On 10/02/2012, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
If I notice that software in Debian is ignoring TMP/TMPDIR (since I use
libpam-tmpdir), what severity should I file the resulting bugs at?
I'll file them at wishlist as suggested by the second
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino wrote:
If you (or the maintainer) review the code or analyse the program's
behaviour and it is using *fixed* (i.e. not random) filenames for the
temporary files or for the directories they are created in (/tmp or
/var/tmp), you might
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino wrote:
If you (or the maintainer) review the code or analyse the program's
behaviour and it is using *fixed* (i.e. not random) filenames for the
temporary files or for the directories they are created
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:53 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino wrote:
If you (or the maintainer) review the code or analyse the program's
behaviour and it is using *fixed* (i.e. not random) filenames for
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
The test should be for non-random names *or* missing O_EXCL. Use of an
entirely predictable name with O_EXCL allows a DoS and use of a
pseudo-random name without O_EXCL may still be exploitable for
overwriting other files if the attacker can try
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Sometimes there are no good options other than using O_EXCL with a
predictable name because the name is used as a rendezvous point. This is
the case in some (non-default) configurations for Kerberos tickets, for
example.
Why would /tmp
Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au writes:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Sometimes there are no good options other than using O_EXCL with a
predictable name because the name is used as a rendezvous point. This
is the case in some (non-default) configurations for
In data Tuesday 07 February 2012 17:39:46, bastien ROUCARIES ha scritto:
And swap as hell and kill interactivity
i am afraid many people on this list have no direct experience of what happens
when linux is out of memory and starts to swap.
i have an embedded system with 32MiB of RAM where no
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:22:58 +0100
Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it wrote:
In data Tuesday 07 February 2012 17:39:46, bastien ROUCARIES ha scritto:
And swap as hell and kill interactivity
i am afraid many people on this list have no direct experience of what
happens
when linux is out
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
If I notice that software in Debian is ignoring TMP/TMPDIR (since I use
libpam-tmpdir), what severity should I file the resulting bugs at?
I'll file them at wishlist as suggested by the second mail in this thread.
This thread has gotten out of
Le Tuesday 7 February 2012 03:52:33, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
arbitrarily large files (in my workflow, 5-100 GB) in /tmp, which is
on the root filesystem.
And swap as hell and kill interactivity
Well, that is Seriously Broken, and
On 02/05/2012 12:22 PM, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
On 2012-02-05 11:04, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-02-05, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
If I notice that software in Debian is ignoring TMP/TMPDIR (since I use
libpam-tmpdir), what severity should I file the resulting bugs at?
wishlist?
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:59:07PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 02/05/2012 12:22 PM, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
On 2012-02-05 11:04, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-02-05, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
If I notice that software in Debian is ignoring TMP/TMPDIR (since I use
libpam-tmpdir),
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
arbitrarily large files (in my workflow, 5-100 GB) in /tmp, which is on
the root filesystem.
Well, that is Seriously Broken, and it needs fixing. And it is not a
wishlist bug either. We've been through a thread about this rather
recently.
There
On 2012-02-05, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
If I notice that software in Debian is ignoring TMP/TMPDIR (since I use
libpam-tmpdir), what severity should I file the resulting bugs at?
wishlist?
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 2012-02-05 11:04, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-02-05, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
If I notice that software in Debian is ignoring TMP/TMPDIR (since I use
libpam-tmpdir), what severity should I file the resulting bugs at?
wishlist?
/Sune
Depends on how bit the files it uses in tmpdir.
Hi all,
If I notice that software in Debian is ignoring TMP/TMPDIR (since I use
libpam-tmpdir), what severity should I file the resulting bugs at?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
26 matches
Mail list logo
