| 1 |
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 09:03:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 17 February 2007, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Using preserve-libs it would leave the old lib around, |
| 4 |
> > making it possible for programs to link against the wrong version and |
| 5 |
> > ending up being vulnerable. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> generally, this is incorrect |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> the only way you could link against it is if you were to actually specify the |
| 10 |
> full path to the library: |
| 11 |
> ... /usr/lib/libfoo.so.3 ... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> and since that's invalid usage, there is no real security impact |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Security impact is from a pkg potentially dragging along old libs; if |
| 16 |
you've got a stable pkg that gets an update once every blue moon, it |
| 17 |
can hold onto the lib for a *long* time while still using the lib; |
| 18 |
thus if a vuln. in the lib, said pkg still is screwed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Other angle is someone intentionally forcing usage of a known bad |
| 21 |
library that is still dangling. Corner case, but doable. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Bit curious how this is going to behave if via linked in libs, new loc |
| 24 |
and old get loaded alongside... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
~harring |
Archives