Re: is gitosis secure?
- From
- Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
- Date
- Jan 18, 2009, 13:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87skngoifj.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <200901180650.06605.bss@iguanasuicide.net>
* Boyd Stephen Smith, Jr.:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Sunday 18 January 2009, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote > about 'Re: is gitosis secure?': >>* Sam Vilain: >>> Restricted unix shells are a technology which has been proven secure >>> for decades now. >>Huh? Things like scponly and rssh had their share of bugs, so I can >>see that there is some concern. (And restricted shells used to be >>circumvented by things like Netscape's print dialog.) > > From my understanding, a restricted shell is a difficult thing to escape > from unless a user is able to run binaries that they have written. FWIW, > I don't remember sftp or scponly having this particular vulnerability.
scponly issues due to interpretation conflicts:
CVE-2002-1469 scponly does not properly verify the path when finding the (1) scp or ... CVE-2004-1162 The unison command in scponly before 4.0 does not properly restrict ... CVE-2005-4533 Argument injection vulnerability in scponlyc in scponly 4.1 and ... CVE-2007-6350 scponly 4.6 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to bypass ... CVE-2007-6415 scponly 4.6 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to bypass ...
rssh has fewer such issues, only CVE-2004-1161 seems to be intrinsic to the program's purpose (but some of the other issues might be used as circumvention devices, too).
That's why I think it's not totally outlandish to assume that restricted shells are usually not very helpful for compartmentalization purposes.