Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:19:05 -0500 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@freebsd.org> Cc: security-team@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, freebsd-gnome-team@marcuscom.com, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/hal Makefile ports/sysutils/hal/files patch-hal.conf.in Message-ID: <455CF1E9.1040709@marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <20061117000224.91f0f80c.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> References: <200611161949.kAGJnDr5074353@repoman.freebsd.org> <20061116211550.GA68969@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061116225709.13d06775.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <20061116222509.GA70087@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061117000224.91f0f80c.jylefort@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:25:09 -0500 > Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:57:09PM +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:15:50 -0500 >>> Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:49:13PM +0000, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: >>>>> jylefort 2006-11-16 19:49:13 UTC >>>>> >>>>> FreeBSD ports repository >>>>> >>>>> Modified files: >>>>> sysutils/hal Makefile >>>>> Added files: >>>>> sysutils/hal/files patch-hal.conf.in >>>>> Log: >>>>> Give wheel group members the same rights as operator group members. >>>> This violates the definition of the wheel group, FYI (even though it >>>> might seem expedient), so it can be viewed as a weakening of the >>>> security model. Prior to this commit, the only right that the wheel >>>> group had was the ability to attempt to su to root, if the user knows >>>> the password. >>> The commit message should have been: >>> >>> Give wheel group members the same HAL rights (mount a volume, etc) as >>> operator group members. >> Yes, I understood. My point was that this was precisely the role of >> the operator group, so you've combined two entities which previously >> had distinct security behaviours. > > Makes sense. However since the decision was discussed collectively > I'll wait for other opinions before reverting. I see Kris' point. While this isn't a privilege escalation per se, we are violating the separation of privilege, and it would probably be a good idea to back this out. Joe - -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFXPHob2iPiv4Uz4cRAsanAKCYkatHSeT+lupZ4WutXvStjt6gVQCfasGP x+lsSWEYOqrzllxO87o2AEU= =yjGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?455CF1E9.1040709>