Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:13:36 +0200 From: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com> To: Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@...hat.com> Cc: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de>, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, Nicolas François <nekral.lists@...il.com> Subject: Re: /bin/su (was: CVE request -- coreutils -- tty hijacking possible in "su" via TIOCSTI ioctl) On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:50:47PM +0200, Ondrej Vasik wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 09:49 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > > 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. No problem. I agree with the change. > For me, having it in coreutils, shadow-utils, SimplePAMApps and possibly > - in util-linux - could only cause a lot of confusion. Some > consolidation might be better. Some consolidation is necessary for many of your utils. I think that a lot code in shadow-utils is currently unnecessary -- with PAM-only utils we can probably simplify many things. > Adding util-linux upstream maintainer to CC. Thanks. Karel -- Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com> http://karelzak.blogspot.com
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