From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 23 18:00:48 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F0C16A41F for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 18:00:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D017C13C45D for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 18:00:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l4NHnDNV006648; Wed, 23 May 2007 13:49:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]); Wed, 23 May 2007 13:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:49:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Colin Percival In-Reply-To: <46546E16.9070707@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <46546E16.9070707@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: RFC: Removing file(1)+libmagic(3) from the base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:00:48 -0000 On Wed, 23 May 2007, Colin Percival wrote: > FreeBSD architects and file(1) maintainer, > > I'd like to remove file(1) and libmagic(3) from the FreeBSD base system > for the following reasons: > 1. I don't see it as being a necessary component of a UNIX-like operating > system. > 2. It's available in the ports tree. > 3. Due to its nature as a program which parses multiple data formats, it > poses an unusually high risk of having security problems in the future > (cf. ethereal/wireshark). > > The one redeeming feature of file/libmagic as far as security is concerned > is that it doesn't act as a daemon, i.e., other code or user intervention > is required for an attacker to exploit security issues. This is why I'm > asking here rather than wielding the "Security Officer can veto code which > he doesn't like" stick. :-) > > Can anyone make a strong argument for keeping this code in the base system? Yes, because other OS's have it (file) in their base, and because it is a POSIX-defined utility. Please consider this a strong no. -- DE