From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 24 14:59:23 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 D417816A400; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:59:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (nagual.pp.ru [194.87.13.69]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C79A13C489; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:59:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4OExLwr031747; Thu, 24 May 2007 18:59:21 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l4OExLDD031746; Thu, 24 May 2007 18:59:21 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:59:20 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: Daniel Eischen Message-ID: <20070524145920.GB31367@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , Daniel Eischen , Colin Percival , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.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/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:59:23 -0000 On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 01:49:13PM -0400, Daniel Eischen 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. Better way is to add a big warning to file(1) manpage about running it against untrusted sources. -- http://ache.pp.ru/