From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 23 19:58:32 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E6B16A468; Wed, 23 May 2007 19:58:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1767513C465; Wed, 23 May 2007 19:58:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 1B1191A4D80; Wed, 23 May 2007 12:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:59:33 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Daniel Eischen Message-ID: <20070523195933.GM21795@elvis.mu.org> References: <46546E16.9070707@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Colin Percival , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: RFC: Removing file(1)+libmagic(3) from the base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:58:32 -0000 * Daniel Eischen [070523 11:05] wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Colin Percival wrote: > > >FreeBSD architects and file(1) maintainer, > > > >I'd like to remove file(1) and libmagic(3) from the FreeBSD base system > >for the following reasons: > >1. I don't see it as being a necessary component of a UNIX-like operating > >system. > >2. It's available in the ports tree. > >3. Due to its nature as a program which parses multiple data formats, it > >poses an unusually high risk of having security problems in the future > >(cf. ethereal/wireshark). > > > >The one redeeming feature of file/libmagic as far as security is concerned > >is that it doesn't act as a daemon, i.e., other code or user intervention > >is required for an attacker to exploit security issues. This is why I'm > >asking here rather than wielding the "Security Officer can veto code which > >he doesn't like" stick. :-) > > > >Can anyone make a strong argument for keeping this code in the base system? > > Yes, because other OS's have it (file) in their base, and because > it is a POSIX-defined utility. Please consider this a strong no. I agree with Daniel. -- - Alfred Perlstein