Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-09 Thread Thomas Wana
On 07.09.2007, at 11:01, Joachim Breitner wrote: Hi, Am Freitag, den 07.09.2007, 10:59 +0200 schrieb Florian Weimer: * Joachim Breitner: I think mounting the file system no-exec covers that. IIRC, Subversion directly executes the hook scripts, and this will fail in that case. Then this

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-07 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joachim Breitner: >> I think mounting the file system no-exec covers that. IIRC, >> Subversion directly executes the hook scripts, and this will fail in >> that case. > > Then this should be mentioned in the file. I also think that this is > quite a high hurdle: Admins that want that can surely

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-07 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Freitag, den 07.09.2007, 10:59 +0200 schrieb Florian Weimer: > * Joachim Breitner: > >> I think mounting the file system no-exec covers that. IIRC, > >> Subversion directly executes the hook scripts, and this will fail in > >> that case. > > > > Then this should be mentioned in the file. I

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-07 Thread Joachim Breitner
Am Freitag, den 07.09.2007, 10:49 +0200 schrieb Florian Weimer: > * Joachim Breitner: > > >> These files have specific filenames at specific locations relative to > >> the svn repository root. > > > > But since I can put a repository _anywhere_ by just copying it there, > > how do you want the adm

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-07 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joachim Breitner: >> These files have specific filenames at specific locations relative to >> the svn repository root. > > But since I can put a repository _anywhere_ by just copying it there, > how do you want the admin to prevent the user running it’s hook > commands? I think mounting the fil

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-07 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Freitag, den 07.09.2007, 00:45 -0700 schrieb Kaleb Pederson: > Thanks Florian, > > The following are now disabled for svn: > > "editor-cmd", > "diff-cmd", > "diff3-cmd", (just added) > "config-dir", But that does not prevent commiting to a repository with hooks, right? You write in the s

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-07 Thread Kaleb Pederson
Thanks Florian, The following are now disabled for svn: "editor-cmd", "diff-cmd", "diff3-cmd", (just added) "config-dir", The following are disabled for svnserve: "daemon", "listen-port", "listen-host", "foreground", "inetd", "threads", "listen-once", The following for rsync: "rsh", "daemon",

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-06 Thread Florian Weimer
>> Furthermore, in light of comments on the debian list, I just >> disallowed --editor-cmd, --diff-cmd, and --config-dir... but that still >> doesn't help with the editor cmd and diff cmd being specified in config >> files. --diff3-cmd is problematic, too. For rsync, you need to disable daemon

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-04 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi Kaleb, just replying to get the mail into the Debian BTS. Please keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the CC about this topic. I’m not testing these now, but maybe the scponly package maintainer will. Greetings, Joachim Am Dienstag, den 04.09.2007, 13:38 -0700 schrieb Kaleb Pederson: > Hello, > > If y

Bug#437148: [scponly] svn support in scponly is unsafe

2007-09-04 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 04.09.2007, 13:10 -0700 schrieb Kaleb Pederson: > Yes, you are exactly right. This was discovered a while ago and documented > in > our SECURITY document currently only in CVS. You can see it here: > > http://scponly.cvs.sourceforge.net/scponly/scponly/SECURITY?revision=1