News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Richard Stallman on why GNU su didn't support the “wheel”... by derefr on Friday August 18, 2023 @05:35PM (#37182464)
Process owned by human-user fork(2)s and then exec(2)s suid program owned by program-user; program owned by program-user then does most of the work; but calls back over a domain socket to program owned by human-user to get it to do things on the program-user’s behalf.

Picture: local DB client, remote DB server. Server can stream a file to the client for the client to write to disk. “On the same machine, as a different user” is just the trivial case of “over the network.”

Re:Richard Stallman on why GNU su didn't support the “wheel”... by jcrawfordor on Friday August 18, 2023 @05:48PM (#37182606)
This doesn't actually provide the benefit of application isolation though; if the software is malicious or vulnerable the as-user component could be as well. Remember that the biggest use case for application isolation is untrusted applications. Essentially any setuid-based approach to isolation requires a trusted developer using very good practices to remain secure, and that's why it's faded away.
Re:Richard Stallman on why GNU su didn't support the “wheel”... by derefr on Friday August 18, 2023 @10:12PM (#37184788)
What's insecure about setuid if the setuid user isn't a privileged user? For example, a setuid-nobody program, shouldn't be any more insecure than a systemd service spawned as User=nobody, no?
Re:Richard Stallman on why GNU su didn't support the “wheel”... by dathinab on Friday August 18, 2023 @10:17PM (#37184817)
like I sayed: hacks