From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: getuid() vs. geteuid() in auditctl
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:12:00 -0400
Message-ID: <201203211612.01097.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <CALnj_=7f-V+7UEJ_eDgtQFEDCpj5FALCLFk+s9e6H-nxjPJdFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201203201407.46778.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<CALnj_=4DTGENoeXbJAP8suDgW5f7irdfmeoD+g5yyfsK5-X1oA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALnj_=4DTGENoeXbJAP8suDgW5f7irdfmeoD+g5yyfsK5-X1oA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: Peter Moody <pmoody@google.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:38:06 PM Peter Moody wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, March 16, 2012 05:50:56 PM Peter Moody wrote:
> >> line 1162 in auditctl.c has this:
> >> 
> >> #ifndef DEBUG
> >>   /* Make sure we are root */
> >>   if (getuid() != 0) {
> >>     fprintf(stderr, "You must be root to run this program.\n");
> >>     return 4;
> >>   }
> >> #endif
> >> 
> >> Is there any particular reason to use getuid() there as opposed to
> >> geteuid()?
> > 
> > I suppose it doesn't matter. I never envisioned having a helper
> > application, so that why its the way it is. Since we are optionally
> > linking in libcap-ng, I suppose we could even check the capability
> > rather than the euid.
> 
> Just the CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL capability?

On the -m command, it instead needs CAP_AUDIT_WRITE.


 
> > Also note that
> > for certification purposes the file permissions are restricted.
> 
> The permissions of the auditctl binary?

Yes. We ship it 0750.

-Steve