[BusyBox] Improving Our Development Process

[Matt Kraai]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:51:15PM +0300, Vladimir N. Oleynik wrote:
> Matt Kraai wrote:
> 
> > I wrote a similar wrapper yesterday, but upon inspection I don't
> > really see the point.  I don't see why this approach is any more
> > secure than checking a per-applet flag and dropping permissions if
> > appropriate in busybox.c.  The same search code will be present
> 
> After `su' require save privilegies.
> All drop is erroneous.

busybox.c could drop priviledges when appropriate (i.e., for
programs like rm, dd, etc. which shouldn't be setuid) and not drop
them for programs which should be setuid (passwd, su, etc.) as is
already done in tinylogin.  A separate wrapper still has to check
that the applet being invoked is blessed, so I don't see how it is
any more secure to do this check in a separate binary.

Matt