Your message dated Sun, 27 Jul 2025 14:01:48 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1053470: ld.so: ignore tunables in secure mode
has caused the Debian Bug report #1053470,
regarding ld.so: ignore tunables in secure mode
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1053470: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053470
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: glibc
Version: 2.37-12
In the light of the recent privilege escalation vulnerability I'd like
to suggest disabling the support for tunables in secure mode (most
notably for setuid-binaries).
This would mitigate future regressions in the handling of the
environment variable and possible vulnerabilities caused by the
interaction of particular options with security relevant applications.
The support could either be disabled at compile time[1] or at runtime
via a file existence check (either by reusing `/etc/suid-debug` or a
new one like `/etc/suid-tunables`).
[1]:
https://git.altlinux.org/gears/g/glibc.git?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=5d1686416ab766f3dd0780ab730650c4c0f76ca9
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.39-1
Hi,
On 2023-10-05 07:19, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-10-05 09:33, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> > I think that is the sort of conclusion upstream is coming to in
> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/[email protected]/T/#e9123bc53d892ab6552e05109ce939d531d741092
> > too. In any case, the upstream bug tracker / mailing list is probably the
> > place to start with this.
>
> I fully agree with that. Let's try to not have a different behavior for
> each distribution by getting this done upstream. If it doesn't work we
> could look at doing that at the distribution level.
This got implemented in glibc 2.39. Closing the bug accordingly.
Regards
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[email protected] http://aurel32.net
--- End Message ---
