Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Johnny Billquist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Noriyuki Soda <email@example.com>
Date: 08/28/2002 00:42:13
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:34:14 +0200 (CEST),
Johnny Billquist <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> While true, that goes both ways. It also becomes a potentially more
> dangerour system. Sneak things into libc, and you have an even better
> chance at perverting things.
> I don't want to get into a security discussion here, but I don't really
> like the dynamic library things being praised as a security improver.
This objection doesn't make any sense.
If an intruder can modify a file in root partion, he don't have to
use libc as the target. Rather, he can use kernel image to modify.
Then he can do everything he wants. (Even without dynamic /bin or
/sbin, of course).