| 1 |
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 00:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > there are many files out there that contain critical information about |
| 4 |
> > your system ... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > however, there are certainly cases where the admin fully knows what |
| 7 |
> > they're doing and they want to create a binary package of their system |
| 8 |
> > with these sensitive files ... so where to meet in the middle. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > any other potential ideas ? (pretend my idea here isnt the greatest |
| 11 |
> > thing since Robot Chicken) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I will claim that almost any file in /etc is potentially sensitive (even |
| 14 |
> if it does not contain passwords, if may contain other informations |
| 15 |
> interesting to a cracker). And even if we did what you propose, we'd run |
| 16 |
> the risk of missing some and giving the user a false sense of security. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
dont limit yourself to /etc, we're really talking CONFIG_PROTECT ... i wanted |
| 19 |
to avoid that large envelop as there are plenty of files in there which would |
| 20 |
never be of concern (mime.types?), but perhaps it's the only sane way to |
| 21 |
go ... we say anything that is CONFIG_PROTECT-ed is (by nature) potentially |
| 22 |
sensitive rather than expanding the ebuild API to have ebuild writers |
| 23 |
explicitly mark things ... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Maybe we should document somewhere that the only way to make bin pkg |
| 26 |
> that are safe for public distribution is to do emerge -b or -B .. And |
| 27 |
> that pkgs built with quickpkg may contain sensitive information. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
seriously, come on, you dont really expect people to read such things ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
no reason to write off something critical like this when it can be addressed |
| 32 |
-mike |
Archives