| 1 |
Steven J. Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 07:52:02AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The IPC implementation that I've suggested does not involve an SUID |
| 4 |
> > helper, so it is much more secure. Security would rely on the permission |
| 5 |
> > bits of the named pipes that are used to implement IPC. |
| 6 |
.. |
| 7 |
> I don't see how that's "more secure" |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It's a lot more secure to have a single well-defined privileged trust |
| 10 |
anchor (the privileged process) with a well-defined protocol, than to |
| 11 |
have built-in privilege escalation which allows arbitrary actions. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Not sure what a daemon buys you |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Not requiring built-in privilege escalation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
//Peter |
Archives