On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:00:42AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > You can surely explain why /bin/nologin is more secure than
> > /bin/false. I'm eager to learn.
>
> I am curious why any of both would be more secure than /dev/null, a
> place which makes it hard to smuggle an infected binary into.
If the attacker has enough privileges to replace /bin/nologin or
/bin/false, then I fail to see what extra protection would /dev/null
give.
Also, applications expecting an executable binary as the login shell may
break when they find a device node there. And if the breakage is
exploitable, then using /dev/null may turn out to be less secure than
using /bin/bash.
Gabor
--
---------------------------------------------------------
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
