On Monday 23 February 2004 05:25 pm, Tim Kientzle wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > My point (sigh) is that doing system("logger") has the same problem set > > as making nologin dynamic ... > > No, it doesn't. Not if you make nologin static and > have it create a fresh environment before running > any external programs. This would also be considerably > more compact than statically linking in the logging functions. Fair enough. > > Also, personally, I would rather have nologin be static than fix the one > > known case of login -p and just hope no other cases pop up in the future. > > Call me paranoid. :) > > Armoring nologin(8) is insufficient. > > In particular, as David Schultz pointed out, there are a lot > of home-grown nologin scripts out there that are potentially > vulnerable regardless of what we do with the "official" > nologin program. Then do both. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Tue Feb 24 2004 - 06:26:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:44 UTC