4 ms·
I get the first one but not the second one. Since you are just redirecting dlopen, aren't you just rewriting it for people that actually work on your codebase w
by Racing0461 3y ago
I get the first one but not the second one. Since you are just redirecting dlopen, aren't you just rewriting it for people that actually work on your codebase which then compiles?
It doesn't actually block it from 3rd parties.
- zX41ZdbW 3y agoIt is the case when a library already uses dlopen in unusual code paths, but we want to make sure that code paths won't work. The examples are some authentication plugins.
- blibble 3y agoall they have to do to beat your dlopen blocker is link against libdl statically one extra argument to the linker when they compile their plugin
- Racing0461 3y agoI think p is just trying to prevent people from being shot in the foot as opposed to preventing malicious users ie hackers.
- josephcsible 3y agoYou're not supposed to go to such lengths to stop people from shooting themselves in the foot, because when you do, you also stop people from doing clever things.
- Racing0461 3y agoI don't want my authentication library to do clever things.
- josephcsible 3y agoThen you don't have to make yours do so. But if other sysadmins disagree, they should be able to make theirs do so.
- Racing0461 3y agoim talking from the point of view as the user of the software.
- josephcsible 3y agoThe same applies. If you don't want it to do clever stuff on your computer, then just configure it not to do so. Don't try to make the software less configurable so that I can't make it do clever stuff on my computer.
- nemetroid 3y agoIf you link your executable to a library that references a symbol defined in your executable, that symbol will be added to the executable's dynamic symbol table.