Re: RFC: Adding a SECURITY.md document to the Binutils
Paul Koning via Binutils <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Apr 12, 2023, at 12:52 PM, Richard Earnshaw via Gdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/04/2023 17:26, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> ... >> Ack, I reckon this should be addressed by "corrupt output files from valid trusted inputs". If that's not clear enough, could you suggest alternative phrasing that makes it clearer? > > I'm not sure corrupt is general enough. Each instruction in the binary might be completely legal, but their sequencing could leave some vulnerabilities (think spectre, for example, but that's pretty extreme). > > Perhaps something like "... this means that the tools introduce a vulnerability in the output file that was not present in the input files being processed". I think with that wording you probably don't even need the last sentence in the first paragraph. I agree. The scenario in "Reflections on trusting trust", Ken Thompson's famous paper, comes to mind. It might be worth adding that as a reference. paul