Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > Consider a downstream vendor who has support for signed binary
> > executions. If rtld allows a backdoor around exec(2) to run an unsigned
> > binary, that could be a problem for them. It is on them to add support
> > to exec(2) to validate the special case of exec
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:00:48PM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:09:33PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> > > On 05/15/2017 14:52, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > ...
> > Because /bin/chmod is owned by root, not because /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 is
> > limiting execution to ro
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:09:33PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> > On 05/15/2017 14:52, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > Does it mean that old Linux' trick of /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /bin/chmod +x
> > > /bin/chmod would now be possible on FreeBSD as well? Does this have
> > > any security implications
On 05/15/2017 15:52, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:42:23PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:40:49PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:37:42PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
On 05/15/2017 15:36, Alexey Dokuchaev
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 07:42:23PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:40:49PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:37:42PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> > > On 05/15/2017 15:36, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > Would this now allow e
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:40:49PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:37:42PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> > On 05/15/2017 15:36, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Would this now allow executing binaries (with or without +x bit) from
> > > filesystems mounted wi
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:37:42PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> On 05/15/2017 15:36, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:25:29PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:08:55PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> >>> Well, for example, it seems like it would a
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:37:42PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> On 05/15/2017 15:36, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:25:29PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >> ...
> >> The most advanced explanation that I was given in private was among
> >> the lines: "if you have an
On 05/15/2017 15:36, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:25:29PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:08:55PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
>>> Well, for example, it seems like it would allow anyone to execute a
>>> binary even if the sysadmin had set it to -x
On 05/15/2017 15:32, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 5/15/2017 12:29 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:25:20PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2017 12:00 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Mon,
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:25:29PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:08:55PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > Well, for example, it seems like it would allow anyone to execute a
> > binary even if the sysadmin had set it to -x specifically to prevent
> > people from running
On 5/15/2017 12:29 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:25:20PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 5/15/2017 12:00 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Bel
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:25:20PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 5/15/2017 12:00 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >>> New Revision: 318313
> >>> URL: ht
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:08:55PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> Well, for example, it seems like it would allow anyone to execute a
> binary even if the sysadmin had set it to -x specifically to prevent
> people from running it.
The direct mode does not (and cannot) honor set{u,g}id modes of the
exe
On 5/15/2017 12:00 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>> New Revision: 318313
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/318313
>>>
>>> Log:
>>> Make ld
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:09:33PM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> On 05/15/2017 14:52, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Does it mean that old Linux' trick of /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /bin/chmod +x
> > /bin/chmod would now be possible on FreeBSD as well? Does this have
> > any security implications?
>
> Thi
On 05/15/2017 15:18, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> On 15 May 2017, at 16:44, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
>
>> You can already execute "non-executable" binaries using the `exec`
>> shell built-in:
>>
>> ```
>> $ cp /bin/sh .
>> $ chmod -x sh
>> $ exec sh
>> ```
>
> Er, oops: I ought to have said, you ca
On 15 May 2017, at 16:44, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
You can already execute "non-executable" binaries using the `exec`
shell built-in:
```
$ cp /bin/sh .
$ chmod -x sh
$ exec sh
```
Er, oops: I ought to have said, you can execute non-executable binaries
by copying and marking them `+x`:
``
On 15 May 2017, at 16:38, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 22:00 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
Does this have any security implications?
What do you mean ?
Well, for example, it seems like it would allow anyone t
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:08:55PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 22:00 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:08:55PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 22:00 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > Does this have any security implications?
> >
> > What do you mean ?
>
> Well, for example, it se
On 05/15/2017 14:52, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> New Revision: 318313
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/318313
>>
>> Log:
>> Make ld-elf.so.1 directly executable.
>
> Does it mean that old Linux' trick of /lib/
On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 22:00 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > New Revision: 318313
> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:00:30PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > New Revision: 318313
> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/318313
>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:52:36PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > New Revision: 318313
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/318313
> >
> > Log:
> > Make ld-elf.so.1 directly executable.
>
> Does it mean tha
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> New Revision: 318313
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/318313
>
> Log:
> Make ld-elf.so.1 directly executable.
Does it mean that old Linux' trick of /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /bin/chmod +x
/bin/chmod would now be pos
Author: kib
Date: Mon May 15 18:48:58 2017
New Revision: 318313
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/318313
Log:
Make ld-elf.so.1 directly executable.
Check if passed phdr is actually phdr of the interpreter itself, and
decide that this is the case of direct execution. In this
27 matches
Mail list logo
