Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #108718
| From | Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.devel |
| Subject | Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure |
| Date | 2023-07-22 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <GUkdA-1Y58-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <GTVoR-1ICx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTVoS-1ICx-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTVyx-1IFz-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <GUfxf-1V9t-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <GUfGW-1Vd5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On 2023-07-22 08:54:59 +0100 (+0100), Matthew Garrett wrote: [...] > When is a user going to plug in a USB stick and *not* click that > button? I'm not analysing a filesystem by hand to check whether > it's trustworthy before I want it mounted. There's no reason to > automount when the screen is locked and presenting a dialog in the > case where one was plugged in and then the screen unlocked is > reasonable, but that just makes no sense as generic behaviour. When the user has plugged in something that they don't realize contains a USB storage device, perhaps because it's attached to an internal hub within a device which has other purposes. I've read about unsuspecting users buying/borrowing USB chargers and cables which contain malicious widgets designed to backdoor systems. Maybe it's urban legend because I don't personally know anyone who's said they've had machines compromised that way, and most probably target Windows/iOS/Android anyway even if they are in circulation, but since the majority of my portable computing devices charge over USB these days I try to be conscious of it and never plug into the "convenient" charging ports supplied in airports, airplanes, hotel rooms, conference rooms... I just bring my own chargers with me. Also, while the risks of hacked USB devices isn't limited to exploiting filesystem drivers (backdoored keyboards apparently also exist, for example), I tend to not configure hotplug automounting more for preference of having direct control over the system's behavior. I would much rather explicitly call the mount command and be able to decide where in the file tree it gets added, on the rare occasion that I do actually need to plug in a storage peripheral for some reason. I get that I'm probably an exception, but there are definitely users who simply find automounting behavior annoying, beyond any potential security concerns. -- Jeremy Stanley
Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Bug#1041552: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-20 20:10 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-21 10:30 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-21 11:00 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> - 2023-07-21 11:10 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2023-07-21 12:10 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:00 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:10 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-21 19:40 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2023-07-23 02:40 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> - 2023-07-21 11:20 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:00 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-21 12:20 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:30 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:10 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-22 09:50 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-22 10:00 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2023-07-22 10:30 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-22 10:40 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2023-07-22 14:50 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-25 06:40 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-25 06:30 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:20 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <bastien.roucaries@cyu.fr> - 2023-07-21 12:30 +0200
Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com> - 2023-07-21 23:20 +0200
csiph-web