On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Tuesday, March 20, 2001 at 12:55:22 (+1100), Damien Miller wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: getting shared dynamic libraries
> >
> > That is just silly - if someone is in a position to play games with you
> > system libraries then they can do a lot more damage than that.
>
> That's not always true (witness LD_LIBRARY_PATH and the atrocities
> attributed to its misuse).
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is ignored for setuid apps (like ssh) by any sane OS. If
an attacker is able to set arbitrary env vars, then you have bigger
problems than statically linked binaries are going to solve, they could
just diddle $PATH and point you to a trojan ssh binary for example.
> > Since libc is almost always a dynamic lib, then it makes little sense
> > to statically link against other things.
>
> That's bull. Libc is not always a dynamic library, and it often makes
> lots of sense to statically link sensitive binaries (be they sensitive
> in the generic security sense, or only in the sense that they have to be
> highly available and reliable).
Systems without a dynamic libc generally statically link eveything anyway,
so this issue is moot.
> > You may want to statically link against OpenSSL if you plan on upgrading
> > it. All OpenSSL releases to date have broken binary compatability.
>
> If you staticly link ssh or sshd then presumably you statically link the
> entire binary, not just with a few of the dependent libraries.....
You must have a lot of RAM:
[djm@xenon openssh]$ ls -l ssh ssh.static
-rwxrwxr-x 1 djm djm 186020 Mar 21 11:43 ssh
-rwxrwxr-x 1 djm djm 1158408 Mar 21 11:43 ssh.static
On many systems this won't work properly anyway - Solaris and Linux need to
be able to dynamically load nss libs etc.
-d
--
| Damien Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ ``E-mail attachments are the poor man's
| http://www.mindrot.org / distributed filesystem'' - Dan Geer
