home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: jmcarli@srv.pacbell.com (Jerry M. Carlin)
-
- In article <15ibqsINNc3a@ftp.UU.NET> toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene) writes:
- >.. We allow "normal" users to change
- >ownership of their files (though this may not be possible in the future),
- >but not to SETUID their files, since, in the future, neither of these may
- >be possible.
- >
- >Short question: Why is it considered a security risk when people give away
- >their own files (by chown'ing them to someone else) or setuid 'user' their
- >own executables (OK, they have to be careful here) ?
-
- A lot of our internal environment requires users to be able to chown
- files typically during installation of software. Forcing people to run
- as root is DUMB and violates least privilege, a fundamental security precept.
- It appears as though we're mandating insecurity here not security. This
- also applies to setuid.
-
- Effectively what is going on is to try to protect the ignorant from
- themselves but the problem that the solution causes is to set up an
- environment that either has lots more people knowing the root password
- or some poor, harried administrator running around doing chown's.
-
- --
- Jerry M. Carlin (510) 823-2441 jmcarli@srv.pacbell.com
- Alchemical Engineer and Virtual Realist
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 28, Number 73
-
-