Re: More security issues

2002-03-05 Thread Pierre A. Humblet
Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > I don't understand that description. Could you try to explain > in other words? What do you mean by "natural group"? Primary > group as set by Windows (RID 513, "None" or "Domain Users", > typically) or the primary group as set in /etc/passwd or ...? When an intern

Re: More security issues

2002-03-05 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:05:39PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > At 11:19 PM 2/23/2002 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > 3) after a sequence setegid(newg1), seteuid(newuid), > seteuid(original), the process has an unused primary token, > which can be used again if there is another setegid(new

Re: More security issues

2002-03-03 Thread Pierre A. Humblet
At 11:19 PM 2/23/2002 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> I am still looking at that. On 2001-10-31 you added RevertToSelf() in >> dtable.cc (dtable::vfork_child_dup). Do you remember why? > >Yes! It's very important. Without that RevertToSelf(), the >process has no access to it's own open socket

Re: More security issues

2002-02-23 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:06:53PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > >today. E.g. your observation that RevertToSelf() could be dropped, > >probably. > > I am still looking at that. On 2001-10-31 you added RevertToSelf() in > dtable.cc (dtable::vfork_child_dup). Do you remember why? Yes! It's

Re: More security issues

2002-02-22 Thread Pierre A. Humblet
Hi Corinna At 10:13 AM 2/14/2002 +0100, you wrote: >The sec_user() call in CreateProcess() >was never intended to set the default DACL (I didn't even know >that something like that exists when I added that) but to set the >permissions to access the process. Yes, and in the case of DuplicateTo

Re: More security issues

2002-02-14 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 03:50:51PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > Corinna, > > please forget my previous message for now. No problem (I'm very busy currently). Just a side note I forgot in my previous posting. The sec_user() call in CreateProcess() was never intended to set the default DACL

Re: More security issues

2002-02-13 Thread Pierre A. Humblet
Corinna, please forget my previous message for now. Pierre -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: More security issues

2002-02-13 Thread Pierre A. Humblet
At 04:57 PM 2/12/2002 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:34:55PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: Corinna, I have changed the order of the items. >> In the course of debugging I also noticed that the sid2 passed >> to sec_user() from just before CreateProcessAsUser() is us

Re: More security issues

2002-02-12 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:34:55PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > I wonder what the sa in CreateProcess > really does... The only thing that has an effect is the Inherit flag. MSDN documents the SD in the lpProcessAttributes/lpThreadAttributes argument being used as the SD of the called proce

More security issues

2002-02-10 Thread Pierre A. Humblet
Hi Corinna, I have some free time and easy access to an NT so I came back to security issues. As you recall, in setegid(), setting the PrimaryGroup in the process token isn't reliable and was #if'ed out. Consequently non-cygwin subprocesses may create objects with the wrong primary group. I tri