TenThumbs wrote:
> There are a number of bugs
> describing how mozilla assumes that it has privileges it actually
> doesn't. It has always surprised me that mozilla doesn't understand a
> basic part of the Linux/Unix security model. It surprises me more that
> some people questioned why any changes were necessary. It surprises me
> the most why this wasn't part of the design specification for a
> supported platform.
Do these bugs lead to compromises in security? Do they allow exploits?
Or do they just create difficulties in installing Mozilla? I'm aware of
some of those bugs you mention but I fail to see how they indicate a
lack of attention to security.
>
> Then there's PSM. It's designed by a different group yet it also assumes
> more than it should. In this case, it assumes that the loopback
> interface is lightly used so it can use the interface for its own
> needs. It also assumes that it can out file system objects anywhere it
> wants with impunity. It's another example of how mozilla doesn't seem to
> understand the OS environment.
If you have specific issues with PSM, I suggest you file bugs on the PSM
product in Bugzilla, or comment in n.p.m.crypto.
>
> Yes, I realize these issues are being addresses (although it's taking
> far longer than it should), but that's damage control not proper design.
> If developers had been paying attention this would have been caught
> early on.
Maybe so, but complaining about what wasn't done in the past doesn't fix
anything. Mozilla is an open source project, so why didn't you comment
"early on" when you could have brought these issues to our attention?
Why not write a fix yourself?
>
> Finally, there are file permissions. On any Unix-like system, one should
> never set the executable bits unless one really means to. This is
> particularly true on Linux where facilities exist for executing files
> based on suffix or magic number. Mozilla seems to have a hard time
> grasping that concept.
Again, please be specific. If you file bugs pointing out exactly where
this takes place, I'm sure it will be addressed quickly.
>
> What I see is a mozilla that seems to have not done its research on one
> of its supported platforms. This is just a straight forward matter of
> attending to details. So I do not think mozilla is particularly secure
> nor do I think it cares a whole lot.
"Mozilla" is a collaborative community, not a monolithic entity. There's
so many people and organizations involved that I don't see how you can
lob blame at the organization as a whole. Why don't you help out? Make
your complaints specific. Where do these errors you point out lead to a
breakdown in security? How are we vulnerable because of incorrectly set
executable bits? Your vague, unsupported statement that "I do not think
mozilla is particularly secure" doesn't help make it secure.
-Mitch
