[BusyBox] Division of work.

[Vladimir N. Oleynik]

Mark Whitley wrote:

 My security guard in honour of a holiday has left somewhere to walk and I
similar today here I shall spend the night  :-(

> Vladimir, I'm having a little difficulty following you here.
> 
> For starters, in the example you gave above, if you're concerned about anyone
> in group 'wheel' being able to call reboot, you have two choices: 'chmod g-x
> /sbin/reboot' or 'chgrp root /sbin/reboot'. That should solve the problem of
> anyone in wheel being able to reboot the system.
> 
> How would dropping permissions be a problem in your above example? It's
> setuid, not setgid, so I don't see how 'wheel' would enter into it from the
> standpoint of +s.
> 
> Not every applet would be dropping permissions, just the ones that we
> explicitly set with _BB_DROP_PERMS in applets.h. Thus, if there isn't a need
> for reboot to drop perms, it won't. Simple.
> The idea with dropping permissions is to eliminate the need for a
> suid-wrapper.

It a problem that. To appoint any applet as suid it is necessary recompile
busybox. 
Unless it is simple to make on embedded system?  
Also, suid can be not `root', but and other uid. Your method at all does not
provide this
problem.

My example base on:
1) all apllet and `reboot' builtin in busybox
2) require set suid in runtime


> Lastly, please keep in mind that the approach I described above is just an
> idea that we've been talking about, it's not set in stone. If there's a
> problem with the implementation details, they'll be treated as bugs and fixed.
> If the approach turns out to be a bad design descision, then we'll scrap it
> and come up with a better idea. Please don't worry too much about this. 

Ok.

> Just like it says on the Hitchhiker's Guide: "Don't Panic".

And it of nothing speaks me.  


--w
vodz