Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-31,: Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds

# Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net)
Tue, 04 Aug 1998 20:29:23 -0300

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: Security Patches (was Re: [PATCH].. blah)"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: radio freqs (was: floating-point abuse in 2.1.113)"
- Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"

In message <199808041827.OAA18688@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>, "Albert D. Cahalan"
writ
es:
+-----
| OS/390 does something like that, even for non-setuid processes.
| (no problems either: OS/390 is UNIX) So gcc could be hacked.
+--->8

On which planet? OS/390 is a cross of MVS and VM; it has a POSIX
compatibility layer, but its guts are *not* Unix-like.

    --
    brandon s. allbery	[os/2][linux][solaris][japh]	 allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
    system administrator	     [WAY too many hats]	   allbery@ece.cmu.edu
    electrical and computer engineering
    carnegie mellon university			   (bsa@kf8nh is still valid.)

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

- Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: Security Patches (was Re: [PATCH].. blah)"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: radio freqs (was: floating-point abuse in 2.1.113)"
- Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"