Re: RFC: Adding a SECURITY.md document to the Binutils

On 2023-04-13 06:25, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> So mention of networks reminds me that you don't always need privilege 
> escalation to have a security compromise - simply transmitting a file to 
> a third party, if that wasn't intended, would be enough.

None of the tools can guarantee this with untrusted input when executing 
as a local user; this is why the last bit of sandboxing to analyze 
untrusted input comes in.

> So I would suggest:
> 
> A security bug is one that threatens the security of a system or 
> network, or might compromise the security of data stored on it.  In the 
> context of GNU Binutils there are two ways in which such bugs might 
> occur.  In the first, the programs themselves might be tricked into a 
> direct compromise of security.  In the second, the tools might introduce 

"Direct compromise of security" is essentially what we're trying to 
define more strongly to prevent spurious CVE assignments.

> a vulnerability in the generated output that was not already present in 
> the files used as input.
> 
> Note: none of the programs in the GNU Binutils suite need elevated 
> system privileges (eg setuid) to operate and we recommend that users do 
> not use them from accounts where such privileges are automatically 
> available.

We did have CVE-2021-20197, so it's not always setuid.

Thanks,
Sid