| To: | Walt H <waltabbyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: chown32() weirdness |
| From: | Walt H <waltabbyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:23:47 -0800 |
| Cc: | Wessel Dankers <wsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202181038540.17806-100000@chuckle.americas.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202181050220.17806-100000@chuckle.americas.sgi.com> <20020218180643.O22191@fruit.eu.org> <3C714149.9060506@mindspring.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8+) Gecko/20020212 |
Just checked it. No problem with setuid exploit. Permissions are
stripped on chown, and you're not allowed to setuid afterwards.-Walt Walt H wrote: I was more afraid of the setuid, possibe local root exploit. Maybe that would be caught? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: chown32() weirdness, Walt H |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - Restrict chown, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: chown32() weirdness, Walt H |
| Next by Thread: | Re: chown32() weirdness, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |