X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <46F238A7.9090807@etr-usa.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:08:55 -0600 From: Warren Young User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cygwin-L Subject: Re: Is there someone offering cygwin paid support? References: <2D9E96311DCA4C48BF185EA6928BC7BB026A1822@asc-mail.int.ascribe.com> <20070918155829.1648@blackhawk> <20070918151831.GA27067@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Will Parsons wrote: > why would cygwin be less secure? The more moving parts, the more things there are to break. Postulate that you have a program that's been audited to the point that you're absolutely certain it's 100% secure when run on Linux. Then you port it to Cygwin. Is it secure? The answer cannot be "Yes" until you have also audited Cygwin itself to the same level of assurance. Just one way it could fail is if there is a buffer overflow in the implementation of one of Cygwin's interfaces, and your "100% secure" program calls it. It's then only a matter of time for a skilled hacker to turn that buffer overflow into an arbitrary code execution vulnerability. At minimum, the hacker will then have the privileges of the program. Once the hacker has local access, chances are good that he can parlay that into a privilege escalation attack, and it's Game Over for you. Security is hard. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/