Comments on: Executable application launcher http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/2009/07/executable-application-launcher/ Java, R, Statistics, Algorithms and other stuff Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:02:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bgs http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/2009/07/executable-application-launcher/comment-page-1/#comment-533 Bgs Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:04:06 +0000 http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/?p=14#comment-533 Storing 'security' in the exec bit does work as a temporary workaround even if it's a very ugly approach. My real problem is that they not simply check the bit, but check the 'executability' thus forcing you to mount exec. You can have the exec bit set on a noexec mounted partition. This is simply crappy programming. Having noexec on /home does count a lot. If you have a properly set up system, where the user can only write to places where there is no execution, you achieve a reasonably secure desktop system. I'm forced to hack this feature out of Nautilus as in some places noexec mount is way more important than your desktop icons. Storing ‘security’ in the exec bit does work as a temporary workaround even if it’s a very ugly approach. My real problem is that they not simply check the bit, but check the ‘executability’ thus forcing you to mount exec. You can have the exec bit set on a noexec mounted partition. This is simply crappy programming.

Having noexec on /home does count a lot. If you have a properly set up system, where the user can only write to places where there is no execution, you achieve a reasonably secure desktop system.

I’m forced to hack this feature out of Nautilus as in some places noexec mount is way more important than your desktop icons.

]]> By: Kornelius Rohmeyer http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/2009/07/executable-application-launcher/comment-page-1/#comment-523 Kornelius Rohmeyer Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:36:25 +0000 http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/?p=14#comment-523 I guess if one needs that level of security you should give up on desktop launchers for the moment (and your noexec would have not prevented an "Exec=rm -rf ~"). Btw. I have nothing to do with the Gnome project and I'm not responsible for the Gnome design decisions. And I absolutely agree, that storing the "trusted" value in the execute bit of a file is arguable and should be changed. I guess if one needs that level of security you should give up on desktop launchers for the moment (and your noexec would have not prevented an “Exec=rm -rf ~”). Btw. I have nothing to do with the Gnome project and I’m not responsible for the Gnome design decisions. And I absolutely agree, that storing the “trusted” value in the execute bit of a file is arguable and should be changed.

]]> By: Bgs http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/2009/07/executable-application-launcher/comment-page-1/#comment-495 Bgs Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:04:59 +0000 http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/?p=14#comment-495 Forcing you to mount /home as exec instead of noexec opening up a whole bunch of security holes. Bravo! Forcing you to mount /home as exec instead of noexec opening up a whole bunch of security holes. Bravo!

]]>