-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/02/12 07:45, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 2 October 2012 08:38, Erik Cederstrand <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Den 01/10/2012 kl. 13.55 skrev Eitan Adler >> <[email protected]>: >> >>> On 1 October 2012 07:08, Konstantin Belousov >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I do not believe in the dreadful 'flood ping' security >>>> breach. Is a local escalation possible with non-dropped root >>>> ? >>> >>> It is clearly a local escalation: a non-root user can do >>> something which was intended only for root. It is a different >>> question how serious the breach is. >> >> Are there any objections to the path I attached in my first post? >> To the approach in general? If not, I'll send a PR so it doesn't >> get lost. > Not by me. Please cc me on the PR as I'll commit if no one else > objects. It doesn't seem hurt in general but if you are going to commit it please also change the other instances in the base system. I personally don't think this is useful either -- the case does not apply to FreeBSD and it seems that the Linux implementation is actually a POSIX violation as setuid() is not permitted to return ENOMEM. Cheers, - -- Xin LI <[email protected]> https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQa2AkAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzgYEIAJ3C6ktqB/Pbc7oMiKv0+WJQ NJ5RHWqXp98mDDWrkVhwiCoYjACgvnrRmHujk4Rc/uo5+fVNAGGsagvuBn04ZXOk ANDG+dpsYN1uuQQtabheoO/EoZRVd+0q84mM9gNC6qcHPzXgqJLc+pRQpfG2tTxk wqYqG4d4FTSGveOiGqJV8jvvAyLIxhEXvaoLNEPYyKKC7tKVEOZDH355Zi0C0KIh otZrlKna7WECSd3vCZArnd/qTO+s9WorgUGXPJdN57a1r4QIZM1/Hrja5R2wMtvU dLeo+MVnDjmP6Lpp22dQFg/sj3LQnnVTTC/uZSYanfqf6f6xFjm8hp+EkhJJdjA= =12ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"