Wine securityflaw.

Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun at
Sun Oct 27 08:34:28 CST 2002

On October 27, 2002 06:37 am, Peter Andersson wrote:
> My idea is to use ptrace in a supervisor process to trap all syscalls from
> the wine process, and use some kind of sanity checks for some of the
> syscalls. Watching the fork,exec,open,write and unlink syscalls and doing
> sanity checks could offer atleast some security.

You have not been flamed. Yet. But if you continue in this maner, you will.
Really, the idea is silly. There is no 'security' issue. What you're talking 
about is nonsensical. So it would be a lot more productive to contemplate 
why this is so, rather than repeating the same stuff, over, and over.

> Could this work?


> Do you see this as a useful option?

Absolutely not.

The idea is so 'out there' that's almost hard to argue against it.
Instead of 'some kind of sanity checks for some of the syscalls',
please give us _ONE_ example of what those 'some's are. That is,
describe an example of one sanity check, in one syscall. And we'll
then tell you why that makes no sense.


More information about the wine-users mailing list