Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:49:06 +0200 From: Nicolas François <nicolas.francois@...traliens.net> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de>, Ondřej Vašík <ovasik@...hat.com> Subject: Re: /bin/su (was: CVE request -- coreutils -- tty hijacking possible in "su" via TIOCSTI ioctl) Hello, On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 09:49:20AM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > > 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. I still receive bug reports for shadow-utils for the non-PAM variant. (bug I don't remember if these bugs were reported for su). In my case, I would prefer to keep the su non-PAM variant as long as I would support non-PAM variants for the other tools (or as long as I support su). Regarding distros without PAM, there might be gentoo to be counted in the list (although PAM is enabled by default). Kind Regards, -- Nekral
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.