From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh |
Date: | 2001-06-24 21:18:34 |
Message-ID: | 200106242118.f5OLIY700884@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > This brings up a question. If I have pid 333 and someone creates a file
> > world-writable called /tmp/333, and I go and do:
> >
> > cat file >/tmp/$$
> >
> > isn't another user now able to modify those temp file contents. Is that
> > the insecurity you mentioned Peter, and if so, how do you prevent this?
>
> That is one possibility. Another exploit is with a symlink from /tmp/333
> to a file you want to overwrite. This is more fun with root, but it's
> still not a good idea here.
>
> To securely create a temp file in shell you need to use mktemp(1), or do
> something like (umask 077 && mkdir $TMPDIR/$$) to create a subdirectory.
> Needless to say, it's tricky.
Wow, that symlink is a bad one. I don't see mktemp(1) on bsd/os, only
mktemp(3). I do see it on FreeBSD.
Good thing I don't have other shell users on my system. I do cat
>/tmp/$$ all the time in scripts.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian - CVS | 2001-06-25 01:54:00 | pgsql/src/interfaces/jdbc/org/postgresql/jdbc2 ... |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-06-24 11:25:12 | Re: pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Moore | 2001-06-24 21:38:58 | Re: JDBC Connection State Management with SQL Exceptions (esp Postgresql) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-24 21:08:10 | Re: Why would this use 600Meg of VM? |