From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 1 21:10:56 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD9416A420; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:10:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wxs@syn.csh.rit.edu) Received: from syn.csh.rit.edu (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBEC43D45; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:10:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wxs@syn.csh.rit.edu) Received: from syn.csh.rit.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by syn.csh.rit.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k21LJW8g046215; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:19:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wxs@syn.csh.rit.edu) Received: (from wxs@localhost) by syn.csh.rit.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k21LJWCw046213; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:19:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wxs) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:19:32 -0500 From: Wesley Shields To: Lowell Gilbert Message-ID: <20060301211932.GA42815@csh.rit.edu> References: <20060301170306.GZ55746@elvis.mu.org> <4405F673.8060907@samsco.org> <44mzg9ucpm.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44mzg9ucpm.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:10:56 -0000 On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:33:41PM -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Scott Long 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. -- WXS