4 ms·

I'm all for avoiding running things as root, but what does it being written in Ruby have to do with it?

by btucker 15y ago

xtacy 15y ago
It probably has a greater attack surface that can be exploited. The advantage of iptables is that it does the barest minimum at a high privilege level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege
- igorhvr 15y ago
  Beware that there is no consensus that this is a good thing. From Daniel Bernstein(qmail creator) at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf "I have become convinced that this “principle of least privilege” is fundamentally wrong. Minimizing privilege might reduce the damage done by some security holes but almost never ﬁxes the holes. Minimizing privilege is not the same as minimizing the amount of trusted code, does not have the same beneﬁts as minimizing the amount of trusted code, and does not move us any closer to a secure computer system."
  - russelldavis 15y ago
    There's no consensus that "reducing the damage done by some security holes" is a good thing? Bernstein mentions it as a distraction (which may be true), but it's better than doing nothing.
  - xtacy 15y ago
    I feel that fixing the security holes has little to do with reducing the damage done due to increased attack surface. If you're a software developer who is not doing security research, and who is mainly interested in some functionality offered by a module, you'd be better off giving the module exactly the privileges it needs, not more and not less. If not, wouldn't OS's run all user-space programs in ring-0? (Maybe I am stretching it a bit) If Bernstein meant that this principle has been misquoted/abused/understood in all wrong ways (like most of the "premature optimization" quotes), then perhaps it makes some sense. :)
icebraining 15y ago
Nothing against Ruby specifically, 'though I guess I do have a prejudice (in terms of security) against interpreted languages in general compared to something written in C.
- revetkn 15y ago
  Dumb question: wouldn't it be more secure to use languages that are immune to C issues like buffer overflows?
  - mustpax 15y ago
    That's actually a good question. The lack of buffer overflow vulnerabilities does make interpreted languages safer to a point. Still anything that listens on an open port shouldn't run as root, there are still plenty of vulnerabilities besides buffer overflows out there.

I'm all for avoiding running things as root, but what does it being written in Ruby have to do with it?

by btucker 15y ago

I'm all for avoiding running things as root, but what does it being written in Ruby have to do with it?

xtacy 15y ago

It probably has a greater attack surface that can be exploited. The advantage of iptables is that it does the barest minimum at a high privilege level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege

igorhvr 15y ago
Beware that there is no consensus that this is a good thing. From Daniel Bernstein(qmail creator) at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf "I have become convinced that this “principle of least privilege” is fundamentally wrong. Minimizing privilege might reduce the damage done by some security holes but almost never ﬁxes the holes. Minimizing privilege is not the same as minimizing the amount of trusted code, does not have the same beneﬁts as minimizing the amount of trusted code, and does not move us any closer to a secure computer system."
- russelldavis 15y ago
  There's no consensus that "reducing the damage done by some security holes" is a good thing? Bernstein mentions it as a distraction (which may be true), but it's better than doing nothing.
- xtacy 15y ago
  I feel that fixing the security holes has little to do with reducing the damage done due to increased attack surface. If you're a software developer who is not doing security research, and who is mainly interested in some functionality offered by a module, you'd be better off giving the module exactly the privileges it needs, not more and not less. If not, wouldn't OS's run all user-space programs in ring-0? (Maybe I am stretching it a bit) If Bernstein meant that this principle has been misquoted/abused/understood in all wrong ways (like most of the "premature optimization" quotes), then perhaps it makes some sense. :)

icebraining 15y ago

Nothing against Ruby specifically, 'though I guess I do have a prejudice (in terms of security) against interpreted languages in general compared to something written in C.

revetkn 15y ago
Dumb question: wouldn't it be more secure to use languages that are immune to C issues like buffer overflows?
- mustpax 15y ago
  That's actually a good question. The lack of buffer overflow vulnerabilities does make interpreted languages safer to a point. Still anything that listens on an open port shouldn't run as root, there are still plenty of vulnerabilities besides buffer overflows out there.