Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:11:56 -0400 From: "Michael Johnson" <ahze@ahze.net> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs Message-ID: <b2203fed0610140511g66dd0c91xe1bc0a006b57337c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <cb5206420610052235t78033639vaa90429f07581078@mail.gmail.com> <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> <cb5206420610130618ycb0a14ev90dbcebdbf6b6316@mail.gmail.com> <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/13/06, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:18:57PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > On 10/7/06, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > >> I wonder if there is a way to deal with statically linked binaries, > > >> which use vulnerable libraries. > > > > > >The best way is to track them down and force them all to link > > >dynamically; static linking is a PITA from a systems management point > > >of view :) > > > > Do you think we could do that without a serious impact on > > performance? > > In most of the cases I've looked at the statically linked binary is > not performance critical or otherwise necessary (the only exception I > saw is for some tripwire-like port whose name I forget, which is > statically linked as a security enhancement, to make it lease easily > subverted). Static linking can be made an OPTION if someone thinks > it's really necessary for a given port. Each of the ports listed in this thread are bad examples of finding static linked to ffmpeg. libxine, gstreamer-ffmpeg, and mplayer include ffmpeg in their source and don't link to multimedia/ffmpeg. Patching these ports to use a shared version of ffmpeg is pretty much out of the question since we would lose support from the authors. With that said I do see the point you're making and I do agree if at all possible make a shared library. Michael > > > I know Gentoo has this Prelink feature > > (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/prelink-howto.xml) which > > helps with performance, but looks like a hack. > > > > Anyway, maybe portmgr could issue some kind of a policy > > about this. I.e. (1) use {build,run}_depends instead of lib_ > > when you depend on a port providing both shared and > > static libraries, but link statically; (2) make an effort to > > encourage dynamic linking - try to provide only shared > > libs in new ports, remove unused static ones from old > > ones, and so on. > > (1) is just a statement of correct behaviour, no need for a policy > about it (it could be clarified in the porters handbook if needed). > (2) could also be added to the porter's handbook as a recommendation- > I don't think we need a formal proclamation of policy about it. > > Kris > > P.S. I can provide a list of static binaries in ports if anyone wants > to work on fixing them. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b2203fed0610140511g66dd0c91xe1bc0a006b57337c>