Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:14:39 +0200 From: Luka Marinko <luka.marinko@...il.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Nicolas François <nekral.lists@...il.com>, Ondřej Vašík <ovasik@...hat.com> Subject: Re: /bin/su (was: CVE request -- coreutils -- tty hijacking possible in "su" via TIOCSTI ioctl) 2011/6/15 Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de>: > Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: >> On Friday, June 10, 2011 11:55 CEST, Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de> wrote: >> >> > The issue also reminds me that there are several su implemenations. >> > On Fedora and SUSE we have a patched coreutils version, Debian uses >> > the one from shadow-utils and then there's also a su from >> > SimplePAMApps, used by e.g. Owl. Of course each one has it's own >> > quirks and weird features. Does anyone still remember why a >> > particular implementation was chosen? :-) >> >> >> In Ark Linux, we switched from the coreutils one to the shadow-utils one >> about 2 years ago because the shadow-utils one does what we need (incl. PAM >> support) without having to port the PAM patch on every new coreutils release. > > Upstream coreutils indicated that they consider su in coreutils kind > of deprecated, basically only kept for legacy reasons on non-Linux > OSes. They would accept the PAM patch though so distros don't need > to maintain it. > > Is there actually any serious distro that doesn't use PAM though? > Those #ifdefs to keep old shadow compatibility makes the code rather > ugly and hard to read. Maybe it's time to just rip out the old code > and submit a clean, PAM only su to util-linux. > Slackware does not use PAM by default and it uses coreutils su (at least it did in 12) Luka Marinko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ