Hi, On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Key Offecka <key.offe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > if the user (the real user, not the effective one) is root then permission > check is successful > else > if the user owns the resource then permission check is successful > else > if the user belongs to the group owning the resource then permission > check is successful > I guess we should also add "and the resource is read-writable by its group" > else deny the access > What do you mean by "the resource" in the lines above? There are at least two pieces of resource in the game, the tty and the vcsa (maybe more, I don't know). We'd need a much more precise description. So, I think the main question here: isn't mc too paranoid? > It could easily be, dunno. > To answer this question we could try answering some more specific > questions: > > How do you think > 1) is it OK that in the descried example root has that dumb terminal? > 2) if a user doesn't own the tty device but is a member of a group owning > the tty, should that user have the dumb terminal? > There are two sides of the story: the user-expected behavior and the technical possibilities. Not sure if the two match here. Normally I'd always put the user-facing behavior first and do the technical bits to implement the expected user-facing behavior. Having a setuid/setgid bit changes the game quite a bit, compromises might become necessary, not having a security hole becomes the number one priority even if the user-facing behavior suffers from drawbacks. What I would say is: If the actual real user has the sufficient access to the tty and vcsa devices even without a setuid/setgid bit (in other words: they could compile and install a modified version of cons.saver for themselves which removes all the current verifications and just tries to operate on the devices and would succeed even without the setuid/setgid bits) then the checks we have in place should not introduce any obstacles. There's no point in denying something that a non-setuid/setgid appication could do. This definitely covers your 1st point. Root should always have access. I am not convinced about the 2nd. On my system (Ubuntu) the vcsa devices belong to the tty group and have read-write perms for this group, so on my system, yes. On your system where these vcsa devices cannot normally be accessed by a member of the tty group _and_ the real user is not the same as the tty's owner, I'm not convinced yet why permission should be granted. Note that there's also the capabilities subsystem which I know nothing about. On the both questions personally I answer: no and no. It's not OK that root > has the dump terminal, in my opinion it's not OK for a member of the tty > group to have the dumb terminal. > This is a heavily security sensitive topic. Any change should be backed up by something stronger than an "in my opinion", any loosening should be thoroughly reviewed, and if there's any doubt, we should err on the side of being paranoid and restrictive rather than risking a security/privacy/dataleakage hole. I'm not against improving the situation at all, but I'd like to see a strong justification behind every requested change, examining why that change cannot be used maliciously much rather than why it solves something on your setup. cheers, egmont
_______________________________________________ mc-devel mailing list https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
