Subject: /usr/local in PATH
To: None <netbsd-users@NetBSD.org>
From: Magnus Eriksson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/29/2007 18:00:18
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, John Nemeth wrote:
> Sure, but I think this is just being paranoid. Only root can
> setup those directories. If anything else manages to do so, then
> you're already screwed.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> I do not agree that it's a hole. I think it's correct to
> include /usr/local in default paths -- /usr/local/bin for
I should probably explain the scenario I'm seeing here. My concern is
that a bug in a suid program will allow the directory /usr/local/bin to be
created, with permissions such that a malicious user can put his own
binaries there. Then the next time root types "sl" instead of "ls" you're
I'd say that the obvious solution is to not have /usr/local in the PATH
at all, or to set things up right in the first place, with appropriate
permissions. (I think most people were already in agreement about
reinstating /usr/local ...)
And I don't see how it follows that you're automatically screwed just
because a buggy suid root binary can be exploited to create a directory.
As long as you don't have an obvious target for creation, like there is
>> So in the default PATH for all users? Including root? Wow.
> If you do 'useradd -m root', yes. Given that root already exists --
> with a .profile, etc., that doesn't come from there -- I'd call that a
>>> Also, the ones in /root/.*.