From owner-cvs-all Tue Feb 19 3: 6:51 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9B037B400; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:06:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 685C75341; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:06:43 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Robert Watson Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, security-officer@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/procfs procfs_subr.c References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 19 Feb 2002 12:04:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [resent due to Cc: snafu] Uh, wait, I'm mixing apples and oranges here. You were talking about the -STABLE code, while I was talking about the -CURRENT code. Here's the breakdown: - pseudofs in -CURRENT had a bug where setugid processes' files were still readable by the owner of the process, but this is mostly cosmetic because procfs' back-end code always calls p_candebug() for sensitive files (ctl, mem and *regs). With yesterday's commit, the EPERM is simply thrown earlier. There was never a security problem in this code. - procfs in -STABLE had mem set group-writeable, which is a problem on systems where several users share a single primary group. I changed the permissions on mem in procfs_subr.c; procfs_access() will enforce them. This is a serious security issue, and merits an advisory. The -STABLE code still lacks defense in depth. It should be taken out back and shot. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about how locking works in -STABLE to backport pseudofs. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message