[uClibc] Busybox, Tinylogin, and setuid
Erik Andersen
andersen at codepoet.org
Wed Aug 13 20:45:46 UTC 2003
On Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 02:13:07PM -0500, Steve Dover wrote:
> Question...
>
> What is the plan here?
>
> Previously, having Tinylogin as a separate
> executable with setuid made sense. Now,
> with the new version of Busybox having
> the Tinylogin functionality, and needing
> setuid on the busybox executable...
>
> I'm not sure from a security standpoint
> that it makes sense.
>
> Will Tinylogin continue to exist as
> a separate buildable that can be setuid
> so that Busybox can be non-setuid?
Tinylogin will continue to exist as a standalone
entity, independent of busybox, to satisfy people
with precisely this concern.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
More information about the uClibc
mailing list