This is a totally bogus vulnerability, as I wrote in my response on
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-0564
In fact, this so-called "fix" might tempt people to run rp-pppoe SUID-root,
which is a Bad Thing, because there are probably tons of other reasons
why a SUID-root rp-pppoe is dangerous.
rp-pppoe 3.6 was released a while ago. It has a proper fix for SUID-ness.
I recommend people use that instead of distro versions with
dubious "security patches"
NOTE: I have set the return path to <devnull (at) roaringpenguin (dot) com [email concealed]> to avoid
hundreds of responses from Bugtraq readers' broken auto-responders. To
reply to me, reply to <dfs (at) roaringpenguin (dot) com [email concealed]>
> Synopsis: Updated rp-pppoe package fixes security issue
> Advisory ID: FLSA:152794
This is a totally bogus vulnerability, as I wrote in my response on
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-0564
In fact, this so-called "fix" might tempt people to run rp-pppoe SUID-root,
which is a Bad Thing, because there are probably tons of other reasons
why a SUID-root rp-pppoe is dangerous.
rp-pppoe 3.6 was released a while ago. It has a proper fix for SUID-ness.
I recommend people use that instead of distro versions with
dubious "security patches"
NOTE: I have set the return path to <devnull (at) roaringpenguin (dot) com [email concealed]> to avoid
hundreds of responses from Bugtraq readers' broken auto-responders. To
reply to me, reply to <dfs (at) roaringpenguin (dot) com [email concealed]>
Regards,
David.
[ reply ]