chuckr at chuckr.org
Sat Nov 10 18:42:52 PST 2007
Reko Turja wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> Today I saw a security notice:
>> cat distinfo
>> MD5 (cups-1.3.3-source.tar.bz2) = d4911e68b6979d16bc7a55f68d16cc53
>> SHA256 (cups-1.3.3-source.tar.bz2) =
>> SIZE (cups-1.3.3-source.tar.bz2) = 4077262
> Update your ports and INDEX file as it seems that you are installing a
> vulnerable version of cups-base. The VuXML report says:
> cups-base <1.3.4
> so the cups-1.3.3 still has the vulnerability mentioned in the report.
Actually, I think the worst security problem I've seen is one I don't
personally care to fix right now, but I guess I will soon. It's the
fact that postscript is actually a language, one that's more general
purpose in limitations than many people realize. Isn't that true? I
think this means that my postscript interpreter (which is, for me, and I
think for most, is ghostscript) should have some security controls on
it, to limit postscript's direct access to local machine capabilities.
I think that the options in gs for security are too little. It'd be
pretty easy to write a really nasty worm. I remember laughing at my
Windows friends, back when that Philappines worm hit, but we could get
pretty easily hit on gs, or am I all wet?
I don't much like pdf, but at least its not succeptible to such a thing,
because pdf's not a general purpose language (not a language at all).
Nobody's take advantage of it, but it'd be possible to write a general
purpose docbook interpreter entirely in postscript. Wonder if modern gs
limitations would allow such a big program? Sure would be convenient.
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions