Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:33:55 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@csh.rit.edu> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base Message-ID: <20060301233355.GA53937@csh.rit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060301211708.GA30508@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20060301170306.GZ55746@elvis.mu.org> <4405F673.8060907@samsco.org> <44mzg9ucpm.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20060301211932.GA42815@csh.rit.edu> <20060301211708.GA30508@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:17:08PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:19:32PM -0500, Wesley Shields wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:33:41PM -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > > Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> writes: > > > > > > > Maxime Henrion wrote: > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > I have released a new snapshot of csup a few minutes ago, > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > - Executes (shell commands sent by the server, even more rarely > > > > > used), > > > > > > > > Are you joking? > > > > > > Are you asking whether he's joking about (1) the idea of ever > > > implementing it, (2) the fact that he hasn't done it yet, or > > > (3) the idea that it's rarely used? All of those sound > > > reasonable to me... > > > > I'm questioning (1) myself. This just seems like a bad idea from a > > security perspective. Of course, some kind of sanitization could > > mitigate the issue. > > Let's not lose sight of the fact that whoever runs the cvsup server > already owns your machine, since they're giving you unauthenticated > source code [1]. You are right on this point. But on the scale of potentially bad things I think a rogue server sending commands that the client exectues is pretty close to a rogue server sending malicious source code. At least the source is easily verifiable and (in the case of the malicious source being inserted at the master site) has a good chance of being noticed. It's not that I'm 100% against this idea, but rather that I'd like to see the client be cautious of the possibility of a rogue server. Of course, this could all be the plan and I'm just raising a non-issue. > Kris > > [1] Please don't take this as an invitation to talk about how Someone > Should Fix This, since it's not on the table until Someone first > writes csupd :-) I didn't see it as an invitation as I've seen it discussed many times before. Either way, I'm very pleased to see a client written in C. :) -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060301233355.GA53937>