| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 18:21 +0100, Jesús García Crespo wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi! I thought that GCC could means a risk if all of the users of my |
| 3 |
> system are able to run it! I talked this with a friend and he propossed |
| 4 |
> to create a new group, "compiler", for example, where all the users |
| 5 |
> who will be able to run gcc must belong to it! |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Wouldn't be interesting to implement this into Gentoo gcc ebuild as an |
| 8 |
> USE? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Exactly what risk is there from an end-user running a compiler? A |
| 12 |
compiler doesn't access any kind of restricted environment, doesn't |
| 13 |
auytomatically create binaries with other rights than its own and is |
| 14 |
about as "safe" a product as there can be. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And if you think that users running their own programs is a risk, simply |
| 17 |
mount /home as noexec, ( make sure to impose the same limitations |
| 18 |
on /tmp and /var/tmp as well, since users have write-access there) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And.. really. python, perl, awk, bash ... All of those are fully capable |
| 22 |
of creating and running programs. And no, I do not think you can limit |
| 23 |
the use thereof from user accounts.: ) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If you're really paranoid about execution and so on, start reading the |
| 27 |
SELinux FAQ and create a ruleset.. The default one is probably more |
| 28 |
lenient than you want it ;) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
//Spider |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
begin .signature |
| 33 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
| 34 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 35 |
end |
Archives