"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es>:
>"A month of sundays ago Jesse Pollard wrote:"
>> "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es>:
>> >"A month of sundays ago Jesse Pollard wrote:"
>> >> There really shouldn't be 32K privileged programs, and I suspect that 255
>> >> would be sufficient.
>> >Reminds me of a certain statement about 640K.
>>
>> yeah it does... but at least I didn't say "255 should be enough for anybody".
>>
>> I have done counts on the total number of setuid programs (IRIX) and it was
>> under 100. Some of these programs really didn't rate being setuid anyway so
>> they lost the setuid/setgid bit, leaving only 55.
>
>Unfortunately this is the same reasoning. Back then there weren't any
>home computers with more than 100K of ram.
>
>If you make these capabilities safe and useful, then they will be used.
Yes, they will be used. But the intent is to be used by system/security
administrators and not by the everyday user. If there are 32765 (or 255
for that matter) privileged programs, then I would be willing to guarantee
that the security on that system is nonexistant. The ability to audit
the security activities of programs is a must. I have enough trouble with
just the 55 I have. If I find any others on the system, they get removed.
Capabilities themselves are not safe. They are used to make a system safe.
The process of making the system safe requires validation of the programs
being given extra privileges. Otherwise, you have no assurance that security
policies are being enforced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:22 EST