Re: Authorization without permanent setuid on helper
Re: Authorization without permanent setuid on helper
- Subject: Re: Authorization without permanent setuid on helper
- From: Finlay Dobbie <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:43:13 +0000
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:51:34 -0500, Bob Ippolito <email@hidden> wrote:
> I would have to say that this method sounds MORE secure than using
> setuid, because you actually need to authenticate every time. Using
> setuid is for convenience. Once the helper is setuid, it no longer
> requires authorization to run as uid 0. If you don't want the helper
> tool to be "pre-authorized", then you shouldn't setuid it.
Actually, AuthorizationExecuteWIthPrivileges() is considered a
potential security hole, so having a self-restricted setuid tool is
regarded as more secure.
-- Finlay
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden