[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