From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 683 invoked by uid 1002); 7 Sep 2003 18:38:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 1133 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2003 18:38:47 -0000 From: Jan Krueger Organization: microgalaxy.net To: azarah@gentoo.org Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 20:44:15 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: Gentoo-Dev , Thomas de Grenier de Latour References: <200309072018.57030.jk@microgalaxy.net> <1062958861.8455.144.camel@nosferatu.lan> In-Reply-To: <1062958861.8455.144.camel@nosferatu.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309072044.15194.jk@microgalaxy.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] suggestion portage ebuild system file modification rights and protection X-Archives-Salt: 2c1336d9-faea-46bf-acbf-97f4c886a217 X-Archives-Hash: 89d45a60d3ff02c52241ef735886598a On Sunday 07 September 2003 18:21, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 22:18, Jan Krueger wrote: > > On Sunday 07 September 2003 17:57, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > > and change '${D}/usr/sbin/foo' to '${D}/sbin/init' ? > > > (ok, yes, its not going to work as a script if I remember > > > correctly .. but a simple c wrapper is quick to code). > > > > Cool, you just found another security bug in portage! > > > > go on :) > > > > So, the required feature thats implied with your detection, would be the > > possibility to protect the already installed packages from modification > > through installation of another package. > > And if this was baselayout that was compromised ? Then you either -should have audited the ebuild and code of baselayout -hope that the md5sum protection alarmes you -hope that the signature protection alarmes you (not yet implemented) -hope that the security-oriented program analysis alarmes you (not yet implemented) -hope that the problem hit someone else before you so it got widely published and you read the news -hope that the automated test-procedures of gentoo detects the fault (not yet implemented) -invent a special baselayout protection -have a second authorized tree that got not compromised (because operational independend to the one gentoo tree with a special procedure that aims to prevent to move of compromised things between the trees) to compare against before emerge. -install some other os (with maybe different problems) -go out for a walk and watch sparrows or so :) -forbid the emerge of baselayout because you think its better to install baselayout in a special hardened way instead. i better stop now, it seems i could make this list very long :) Jan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list