Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:24:42 +0100 (MET) From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.win.tue.nl> To: proff@iq.org (Julian Assange) Cc: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com, hackers@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: o [1997/02/01] bin/2634 rtld patches for easy creation of chroot enviroments Message-ID: <199702241924.UAA03721@gvr.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <199702241328.AAA10815@profane.iq.org> from Julian Assange at "Feb 25, 97 00:28:33 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It would be neat if one could actually use the chroot() facility > in a secure and efficient manner, without modifying the source for > main() on every binary in the system. You are right. It would be > neat. Since when is something being small, fast, secure, neat and > providing functionality that wouldn't otherwise be there grounds > for rejection of code? I'm quite apalled at this conservative view, > expressed without the slightest understanding of the code involved. > I understand your point and partly I do agree. However, seeing the enormous security hole we found lately in having the setlocale() stuff in ld.so, ppl are a bit reluctant to modify such a piece of code. I think that is understandable. What I do when I want a chroot jail is use a simple program, chrootuid, that does almost the same. In my opinion, that is a cleaner solution because whenever something would be broken, it is only this tiny little program that is broken, instead of *all* binaries. The fact that your code is probably correct does not change this fact. Btw: chroouit can be found at ftp.win.tue.nl:/pub/security -Guido
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702241924.UAA03721>