Re: access() is a security hole?
From: The Anarcat (anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx)
Date: 10/08/02
- Next message: Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu: "Re: Sniffer nic"
- Previous message: Jan Grant: "Re: access() is a security hole?"
- Maybe in reply to: The Anarcat: "access() is a security hole?"
- Next in thread: The Anarcat: "Re: access() is a security hole?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:37:59 -0400 From: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> To: Fernando Schapachnik <fschapachnik@vianetworks.com.ar>
On Tue Oct 08, 2002 at 03:42:04PM -0300, Fernando Schapachnik wrote:
> En un mensaje anterior, The Anarcat escribió:
> > The access(2) manpage mentions an obscure security hole in
> > access(2). How so?
> >
> > "
> > CAVEAT
> > Access() is a potential security hole and should never be used.
>
> It might have to do with the fact that file permissions can change
> between the access() call and the open() call. The preferred way is
> to use fstat() that takes an open fd.
Just what I thought. The man page should be more precise. The way I
read it, there is a security bug in access(2) which is not the
case.
I'll try to come up with an update to the manpage.
A.
--
Advertisers, not governments, are the primary censors of media content
in the United States today.
- C. Edwin Baker
http://www.ad-mad.co.uk/quotes/freespeech.htm
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Next message: Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu: "Re: Sniffer nic"
- Previous message: Jan Grant: "Re: access() is a security hole?"
- Maybe in reply to: The Anarcat: "access() is a security hole?"
- Next in thread: The Anarcat: "Re: access() is a security hole?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
