From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 23 16:16:37 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA05410 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:16:37 -0700 Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (sri.MT.net [204.94.231.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA05400 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:16:21 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24039; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 17:18:23 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 17:18:23 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199510232318.RAA24039@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) Cc: ache@freefall.freebsd.org, John Polstra , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ld.so, LD_NOSTD_PATH, and suid/sgid programs In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > >Can you see a security reason for disabling LD_NOSTD_PATH for suid/sgid > >programs? If not, I think that the recent change should be removed from > >rtld.c. > > In this case I keep in mind some shell script execution which calls > setuid programs. By setiing LD_NOSTD_PATH user allows such > programs easily fails, it is clear. Why should a program which calls setuid programs fail in the first place? If they are calling a setuid program it will still only look in the 'normal' places for shlibs, which means they are safe. > Here can be very unpleasant > side effect that usually shell scripts not expects setuid > programs failing for such reasons and have lack of error traping > at this point. Can you give a more concrete example of where this is a 'bad thing'? I can't even imagine one, even with this explanation. Nate