Re: CVE-2021-4034: why is pkexec still a thing?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Hi,
GNOME System Monitor uses pkexec for doing tasks the user otherwise would be not allowed to do (kill process of other users, renice, etc). But pkexec is only the first option, support for gksu and gnomesu are theoretically also supported as fallbacks, but as far as I see these are not supported by major distros anymore (not supported meaning not provided, not installable).

I am eager to hear some suggestions on replacing pkexec-based solution, or maybe System Monitor should not be part of the default Fedora.

Regards,
Robert

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:39 AM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi folks!

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet - there's quite a kerfuffle today
about a major security issue in polkit:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/01/a-bug-lurking-for-12-years-gives-attackers-root-on-every-major-linux-distro/

turns out that ever since it was invented, `pkexec` has had a bug
allowing for local root privilege escalation. Which is...bad.

The issue and some of the comments around it prompted me to wonder -
why is `pkexec` still a thing? Particularly, why is it still a thing we
are shipping by default in just about every Fedora install?

My best recollection is that pkexec was kinda a kludge to allow us to
get rid of consolehelper: some apps weren't getting rewritten to the
Right Way of doing things under policykit, they still just wanted to
have the entire app run as root, and pkexec was a way to make that
happen.

But that was then, and this is now. Does anything in Workstation use
pkexec? Does anything in KDE use it? I'm pretty sure (at least I really
hope!) nothing in Server uses it. I don't think any of our
documentation recommends its use for interactive execution of things as
root (these days we tend to just specify `sudo` for that and assume the
install has an admin user).

Should we just split it out of the polkit package into a subpackage and
stop shipping the subpackage on those editions/spins at least? If
there's anything in other desktops still using it, it can grow a
dependency on the subpackage...

Am I forgetting some other reason we still need it?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

_______________________________________________
desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora KDE]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat 9]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux