On 8/5/05, Lupe Christoph <lupe (at) lupe-christoph (dot) de [email concealed]> wrote:
>
> I still don't understand why this is a problem. If it were a problem, it
> would be one of humongous dimensions because it affects all programs
> that use open(..., 0666) to create non-executable files potentially
> containing sensitive contents.
In cases where a "secure" file has permissions degraded yes, for
example CAN-2005-1920 where an editor was creating a a backup with
less secure permissions than the original.
> For example all editors. And all shells
> because any redirection could create such a file.
Permission handling in shells is generally accepted to be insecure due
to other issues such as lack of atomicity.
>
> I still don't understand why this is a problem. If it were a problem, it
> would be one of humongous dimensions because it affects all programs
> that use open(..., 0666) to create non-executable files potentially
> containing sensitive contents.
In cases where a "secure" file has permissions degraded yes, for
example CAN-2005-1920 where an editor was creating a a backup with
less secure permissions than the original.
> For example all editors. And all shells
> because any redirection could create such a file.
Permission handling in shells is generally accepted to be insecure due
to other issues such as lack of atomicity.
Imran
[ reply ]