From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Oct 25 20:03:45 1995
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA21150
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 20:03:45 -0700
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA21123
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 20:03:34 -0700
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.50]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA09108; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 20:03:31 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA02836; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 19:55:45 -0700
Message-Id: <199510260255.TAA02836@corbin.Root.COM>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
cc: dab@berserkly.cray.com (David Borman), hartmans@mit.edu,
        security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: telnetd fix 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Oct 95 12:02:58 +0930."
             <199510260232.MAA09332@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 19:55:45 -0700
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> 	3) Provide a configuration file for telnetd to
>> 	   custom tailor the "safe" variable list, along
>> 	   with other configuration information.
>
>But aren't you addressing the _wrong_ side of the problem?  It's not 
>random environment variables that are the danger, but a _specific_ (small)
>set.  Why not provide a customisable list of variables that are _not_
>permitted?  This avoids all of the encoding/decoding cruft, and achieves
>that same goal, does it not?

   The list for exclusion is long and almost guaranteed to be incomplete. It
seems to keep growing daily.

-DG