Skip to content

Discourage use of sanitizers for SUID binaries #670

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2024
Merged

Discourage use of sanitizers for SUID binaries #670

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions docs/Compiler-Hardening-Guides/Compiler-Options-Hardening-Guide-for-C-and-C++.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1133,6 +1133,10 @@ While more efficient compared to dynamic analysis, sanitizers are still prohibit

As with all testing practices, sanitizers cannot absolutely prove the absence of bugs. However, when used appropriately and regularly they can help in identifying latent memory, concurrency, and undefined behavior-related bugs which may be difficult to pinpoint.

Sanitizers should not be used for hardening in production environments, particularly for Set User ID (SUID) binaries, as they expose operational parameters via environmental variables which can be manipulated to clobber root-owned files and privilege escalation[^Nagy2016].

[^Nagy2016]: Nagy , Szabolcs, [Address Sanitizer local root](https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/02/17/9), Openwall mailing list, 2016-02-16.

Table 4: Sanitizer options in GCC and Clang.

| Compiler Flag | Supported since | Description |
Expand Down
Loading