3 ms·

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like a lot of reliance on people knowing and wanting to do the right thing?

jacquesm 4y ago
Most of unix is like that though.
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  This cannot be said enough.
zbird 4y ago
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Would you go to a doctor who doesn't know or want to do the right thing?
- stevehawk 4y ago
  No, we go to facebook sir.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Yes, and the way you'd end up doing that is by not having doctor telepathy.
- pleb_nz 4y ago
  So how do you prevent bad actors from abusing this and/or train every developer on the planet to ensure they do they follow the right processes. Sounds like its something that probably happens a lot and will continue to happen a lot?
dahfizz 4y ago
I don't see the issue. Let's put all subtleties about Unix directories to the side. Zoom wanted to change the permissions of a file so that only root could access it. The obviously correct way to do that is to simply change the permissions of the file. Even if their solution of putting the file in a root dir worked the way they expected, it would be a circuitous and hacky solution. > sounds like a lot of reliance on people knowing and wanting to do the right thing? At a certain point, people need to have basic knowledge. There's a lock on your front door. It does not lock when you turn your lights off. The lock maker is not responsible if you expected it to.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  > The obviously correct way to do that is to simply change the permissions of the file. Obvious, but incorrect. As pointed out elsewhere, the permission check is done when a process opens a file, not when it performs read/write operations. So, an attacker could get a legitimate file, open in for writes, trigger the zoom update on it, zoom would then change the permissions to prevent writes, and then the attacker could modify the file using its already-open file handle.

jacquesm 4y ago

Most of unix is like that though.

hungryforcodes 4y ago
This cannot be said enough.

zbird 4y ago

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Would you go to a doctor who doesn't know or want to do the right thing?

stevehawk 4y ago
No, we go to facebook sir.
whatshisface 4y ago
Yes, and the way you'd end up doing that is by not having doctor telepathy.
pleb_nz 4y ago
So how do you prevent bad actors from abusing this and/or train every developer on the planet to ensure they do they follow the right processes. Sounds like its something that probably happens a lot and will continue to happen a lot?

dahfizz 4y ago

I don't see the issue. Let's put all subtleties about Unix directories to the side. Zoom wanted to change the permissions of a file so that only root could access it. The obviously correct way to do that is to simply change the permissions of the file. Even if their solution of putting the file in a root dir worked the way they expected, it would be a circuitous and hacky solution. > sounds like a lot of reliance on people knowing and wanting to do the right thing? At a certain point, people need to have basic knowledge. There's a lock on your front door. It does not lock when you turn your lights off. The lock maker is not responsible if you expected it to.

mnw21cam 4y ago
> The obviously correct way to do that is to simply change the permissions of the file. Obvious, but incorrect. As pointed out elsewhere, the permission check is done when a process opens a file, not when it performs read/write operations. So, an attacker could get a legitimate file, open in for writes, trigger the zoom update on it, zoom would then change the permissions to prevent writes, and then the attacker could modify the file using its already-open file handle.