why do we need the SUID permission? [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Please read this long intro to understand my concern for why we need the SUID permission for executable binary file.



  • A process in Linux uses its EUID to know the effective User ID of itself.

  • This user's permission is used to decide how this process interacts with other files (ex. whether this process can write to a file)

Consider the scenario with changing password via /usr/bin/passwd



Real life Linux



  • Passwords are stored in /etc/shadow. This file belongs to root with permission (rw-------)


  • If $passwd has permission rwx--x--x, this means only root can change the logic of passwd program.

  • When userA runs the program, a passwd process starts with RUID = EUID = userA

Result is: the program will run. A passwd process is started but it won't be able to change the password since its EUID is userA and userA can't write to /etc/shadow.



This is when the need for SUID permission arrives. SUID allows setting EUID of a process upon execution of a binary to create that process. the EUID will be set to the owner of that binary file.



  • Setting SUID permission for owner of /usr/bin/passwd makes EUID of any passwd process started by any user takes the EUID of root

  • Since root can write to /etc/shadow, any user can use the passwd program to start a passwd process which can make changes to /etc/shadow


There is SUID permission because in Linux, EUID of a process is not hard set to the owner of the executable binary file (which when run, will create that process)




My ideal Linux




No need for SUID permission. If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA.




In the context of the changing password scenario, the logic of this idea is as follows:




  • root is the owner of /usr/bin/passwd and only root can change its logic.

  • The logic inside /usr/bin/passwd lets a user change its password only and not others'.

  • Other users can't modify /usr/bin/passwd, only root can.


  • /etc/shadow can only be writen to by root

Result is: An unprivileged user userA can execute $passwd. He will create a passwd process. This process has EUID = root so it can write to the shadow file.



With this theory, we can achieve: everyone can change their own password (and only their own password) without SUID permission.










share|improve this question













closed as off-topic by countermode, RalfFriedl, G-Man, Goro, A.B Sep 27 at 1:08



  • This question does not appear to be about Unix or Linux within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 4




    in your system where "If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA", who should own /bin/sh and /usr/bin/vi ?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:51











  • I would say root should own. Since it's inside /bin filesystem and according to FHS, /bin is for commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, I think it makes sense if it is owned by root.
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 10:55






  • 5




    But wouldn't that mean that anyone who ran the shell or vi would then have root permissions?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:58











  • Thank you. I see where you're pointing at, so in my system, if root owns /bin/sh or /usr/bin/vi, anyone can use vi as root and modify files only root should be able to modify. It makes perfect sense. Please give me some more time to reflect on your response and my confusion).
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 11:11






  • 4




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a question at all but a discussion/proposal of OS features.
    – countermode
    Sep 25 at 14:01














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Please read this long intro to understand my concern for why we need the SUID permission for executable binary file.



  • A process in Linux uses its EUID to know the effective User ID of itself.

  • This user's permission is used to decide how this process interacts with other files (ex. whether this process can write to a file)

Consider the scenario with changing password via /usr/bin/passwd



Real life Linux



  • Passwords are stored in /etc/shadow. This file belongs to root with permission (rw-------)


  • If $passwd has permission rwx--x--x, this means only root can change the logic of passwd program.

  • When userA runs the program, a passwd process starts with RUID = EUID = userA

Result is: the program will run. A passwd process is started but it won't be able to change the password since its EUID is userA and userA can't write to /etc/shadow.



This is when the need for SUID permission arrives. SUID allows setting EUID of a process upon execution of a binary to create that process. the EUID will be set to the owner of that binary file.



  • Setting SUID permission for owner of /usr/bin/passwd makes EUID of any passwd process started by any user takes the EUID of root

  • Since root can write to /etc/shadow, any user can use the passwd program to start a passwd process which can make changes to /etc/shadow


There is SUID permission because in Linux, EUID of a process is not hard set to the owner of the executable binary file (which when run, will create that process)




My ideal Linux




No need for SUID permission. If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA.




In the context of the changing password scenario, the logic of this idea is as follows:




  • root is the owner of /usr/bin/passwd and only root can change its logic.

  • The logic inside /usr/bin/passwd lets a user change its password only and not others'.

  • Other users can't modify /usr/bin/passwd, only root can.


  • /etc/shadow can only be writen to by root

Result is: An unprivileged user userA can execute $passwd. He will create a passwd process. This process has EUID = root so it can write to the shadow file.



With this theory, we can achieve: everyone can change their own password (and only their own password) without SUID permission.










share|improve this question













closed as off-topic by countermode, RalfFriedl, G-Man, Goro, A.B Sep 27 at 1:08



  • This question does not appear to be about Unix or Linux within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 4




    in your system where "If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA", who should own /bin/sh and /usr/bin/vi ?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:51











  • I would say root should own. Since it's inside /bin filesystem and according to FHS, /bin is for commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, I think it makes sense if it is owned by root.
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 10:55






  • 5




    But wouldn't that mean that anyone who ran the shell or vi would then have root permissions?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:58











  • Thank you. I see where you're pointing at, so in my system, if root owns /bin/sh or /usr/bin/vi, anyone can use vi as root and modify files only root should be able to modify. It makes perfect sense. Please give me some more time to reflect on your response and my confusion).
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 11:11






  • 4




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a question at all but a discussion/proposal of OS features.
    – countermode
    Sep 25 at 14:01












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Please read this long intro to understand my concern for why we need the SUID permission for executable binary file.



  • A process in Linux uses its EUID to know the effective User ID of itself.

  • This user's permission is used to decide how this process interacts with other files (ex. whether this process can write to a file)

Consider the scenario with changing password via /usr/bin/passwd



Real life Linux



  • Passwords are stored in /etc/shadow. This file belongs to root with permission (rw-------)


  • If $passwd has permission rwx--x--x, this means only root can change the logic of passwd program.

  • When userA runs the program, a passwd process starts with RUID = EUID = userA

Result is: the program will run. A passwd process is started but it won't be able to change the password since its EUID is userA and userA can't write to /etc/shadow.



This is when the need for SUID permission arrives. SUID allows setting EUID of a process upon execution of a binary to create that process. the EUID will be set to the owner of that binary file.



  • Setting SUID permission for owner of /usr/bin/passwd makes EUID of any passwd process started by any user takes the EUID of root

  • Since root can write to /etc/shadow, any user can use the passwd program to start a passwd process which can make changes to /etc/shadow


There is SUID permission because in Linux, EUID of a process is not hard set to the owner of the executable binary file (which when run, will create that process)




My ideal Linux




No need for SUID permission. If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA.




In the context of the changing password scenario, the logic of this idea is as follows:




  • root is the owner of /usr/bin/passwd and only root can change its logic.

  • The logic inside /usr/bin/passwd lets a user change its password only and not others'.

  • Other users can't modify /usr/bin/passwd, only root can.


  • /etc/shadow can only be writen to by root

Result is: An unprivileged user userA can execute $passwd. He will create a passwd process. This process has EUID = root so it can write to the shadow file.



With this theory, we can achieve: everyone can change their own password (and only their own password) without SUID permission.










share|improve this question













Please read this long intro to understand my concern for why we need the SUID permission for executable binary file.



  • A process in Linux uses its EUID to know the effective User ID of itself.

  • This user's permission is used to decide how this process interacts with other files (ex. whether this process can write to a file)

Consider the scenario with changing password via /usr/bin/passwd



Real life Linux



  • Passwords are stored in /etc/shadow. This file belongs to root with permission (rw-------)


  • If $passwd has permission rwx--x--x, this means only root can change the logic of passwd program.

  • When userA runs the program, a passwd process starts with RUID = EUID = userA

Result is: the program will run. A passwd process is started but it won't be able to change the password since its EUID is userA and userA can't write to /etc/shadow.



This is when the need for SUID permission arrives. SUID allows setting EUID of a process upon execution of a binary to create that process. the EUID will be set to the owner of that binary file.



  • Setting SUID permission for owner of /usr/bin/passwd makes EUID of any passwd process started by any user takes the EUID of root

  • Since root can write to /etc/shadow, any user can use the passwd program to start a passwd process which can make changes to /etc/shadow


There is SUID permission because in Linux, EUID of a process is not hard set to the owner of the executable binary file (which when run, will create that process)




My ideal Linux




No need for SUID permission. If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA.




In the context of the changing password scenario, the logic of this idea is as follows:




  • root is the owner of /usr/bin/passwd and only root can change its logic.

  • The logic inside /usr/bin/passwd lets a user change its password only and not others'.

  • Other users can't modify /usr/bin/passwd, only root can.


  • /etc/shadow can only be writen to by root

Result is: An unprivileged user userA can execute $passwd. He will create a passwd process. This process has EUID = root so it can write to the shadow file.



With this theory, we can achieve: everyone can change their own password (and only their own password) without SUID permission.







permissions setuid passwd






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Sep 25 at 10:44









Tran Triet

808




808




closed as off-topic by countermode, RalfFriedl, G-Man, Goro, A.B Sep 27 at 1:08



  • This question does not appear to be about Unix or Linux within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by countermode, RalfFriedl, G-Man, Goro, A.B Sep 27 at 1:08



  • This question does not appear to be about Unix or Linux within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







  • 4




    in your system where "If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA", who should own /bin/sh and /usr/bin/vi ?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:51











  • I would say root should own. Since it's inside /bin filesystem and according to FHS, /bin is for commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, I think it makes sense if it is owned by root.
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 10:55






  • 5




    But wouldn't that mean that anyone who ran the shell or vi would then have root permissions?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:58











  • Thank you. I see where you're pointing at, so in my system, if root owns /bin/sh or /usr/bin/vi, anyone can use vi as root and modify files only root should be able to modify. It makes perfect sense. Please give me some more time to reflect on your response and my confusion).
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 11:11






  • 4




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a question at all but a discussion/proposal of OS features.
    – countermode
    Sep 25 at 14:01












  • 4




    in your system where "If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA", who should own /bin/sh and /usr/bin/vi ?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:51











  • I would say root should own. Since it's inside /bin filesystem and according to FHS, /bin is for commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, I think it makes sense if it is owned by root.
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 10:55






  • 5




    But wouldn't that mean that anyone who ran the shell or vi would then have root permissions?
    – Mark Plotnick
    Sep 25 at 10:58











  • Thank you. I see where you're pointing at, so in my system, if root owns /bin/sh or /usr/bin/vi, anyone can use vi as root and modify files only root should be able to modify. It makes perfect sense. Please give me some more time to reflect on your response and my confusion).
    – Tran Triet
    Sep 25 at 11:11






  • 4




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a question at all but a discussion/proposal of OS features.
    – countermode
    Sep 25 at 14:01







4




4




in your system where "If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA", who should own /bin/sh and /usr/bin/vi ?
– Mark Plotnick
Sep 25 at 10:51





in your system where "If executable file binA is created (and owned) by userA, any users who can execute binA will create a process with EUID = userA", who should own /bin/sh and /usr/bin/vi ?
– Mark Plotnick
Sep 25 at 10:51













I would say root should own. Since it's inside /bin filesystem and according to FHS, /bin is for commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, I think it makes sense if it is owned by root.
– Tran Triet
Sep 25 at 10:55




I would say root should own. Since it's inside /bin filesystem and according to FHS, /bin is for commands that may be used by both the system administrator and by users, I think it makes sense if it is owned by root.
– Tran Triet
Sep 25 at 10:55




5




5




But wouldn't that mean that anyone who ran the shell or vi would then have root permissions?
– Mark Plotnick
Sep 25 at 10:58





But wouldn't that mean that anyone who ran the shell or vi would then have root permissions?
– Mark Plotnick
Sep 25 at 10:58













Thank you. I see where you're pointing at, so in my system, if root owns /bin/sh or /usr/bin/vi, anyone can use vi as root and modify files only root should be able to modify. It makes perfect sense. Please give me some more time to reflect on your response and my confusion).
– Tran Triet
Sep 25 at 11:11




Thank you. I see where you're pointing at, so in my system, if root owns /bin/sh or /usr/bin/vi, anyone can use vi as root and modify files only root should be able to modify. It makes perfect sense. Please give me some more time to reflect on your response and my confusion).
– Tran Triet
Sep 25 at 11:11




4




4




I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a question at all but a discussion/proposal of OS features.
– countermode
Sep 25 at 14:01




I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a question at all but a discussion/proposal of OS features.
– countermode
Sep 25 at 14:01










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Both your examples explain how setuid works. However in your "ideal Linux" every executable would start with EUID of the owner of the executable, which would make every executable on your system a setuid executable.



This would clearly cause a lot of problems, to mention a few: every root owned executable would need to do UID checks and call setuid() to set process' EUID back to non-root if the program shouldn't have any additional privileges; users can not make executables available to another users, as the process would run with wrong EUID; configuration errors and bad practices would have critical consequences (such as chmod 777 would now also allow access to any files owned by user). And these are more.



Normal permissions without setuid binaries need some other mechanism to allow unprivileged users to do privileged operations. Setuid binaries allow such privilege elevation and access control is implemented in program logic.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    The marked answer perfectly answered my question. What I put here is the extra logic that is helpful to me in explaining the existence of the SUID permission with regard to the changing password scenario.




    1. In Linux, executable bin files are supposed to be run by different users.




      For example, /usr/bin/nano is a bin for a text editor, it makes sense that this same executable bin file can be executed by different users (why make copies of the same bin file to each user's home filesystem?)





    2. Even though many users should be able to use the same bin file, the process started by that bin file should have different permissions on a file.




      For example, userA and userB should both be able to create two nano processes by executing the same /usr/bin/nano bin file. However, userA's nano process should allow userA to modify his own files and only his own files and vice versa.





    This calls for a mechanism by which a process should apply the same permission that the user who started that process has on a file to that file (instead of the permission of the user who owns the executable bin file which was executed to create the process).




    In Linux, each process has the RUID. The RUID is the id of the user which starts that process. By this logic, the RUID of a process should be the user whose permission on a file is used by that process (e.g. A process decides what it can do to a file based on what its RUID user can do to that file).



    However, in the case of changing password, RUID alone isn't enough because:




    1. /etc/shadow file can't be modified by anyone but root.

    2. Any users want to change password need to do that through executing /usr/bin/passwd executable bin file. This program's logic makes sure an underprivileged user can change his and only his password.

    3. No users except root can change this logic since only root can write to this bin file.

    4. If userA executes /usr/bin/passwd, he will start a passwd process whose RUID is userA.

    5. However, since userA is not allowed to write to /etc/shadow, the passwd process he starts can't write to this file either.


    This calls for a mechanism by which a process decides its permissions to a file based on another user's permissions on that file (instead of the permissions of the user who started the process).




    In Linux, the permission a process has on a file is taken from the permission the EUID has on that file.



    With EUID, root can now use SUID permission to allow userA to start a passwd process that has the EUID set to root. This effectively allows the passwd process started by userA to modify the /etc/shadow file.






    share|improve this answer



























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted










      Both your examples explain how setuid works. However in your "ideal Linux" every executable would start with EUID of the owner of the executable, which would make every executable on your system a setuid executable.



      This would clearly cause a lot of problems, to mention a few: every root owned executable would need to do UID checks and call setuid() to set process' EUID back to non-root if the program shouldn't have any additional privileges; users can not make executables available to another users, as the process would run with wrong EUID; configuration errors and bad practices would have critical consequences (such as chmod 777 would now also allow access to any files owned by user). And these are more.



      Normal permissions without setuid binaries need some other mechanism to allow unprivileged users to do privileged operations. Setuid binaries allow such privilege elevation and access control is implemented in program logic.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote



        accepted










        Both your examples explain how setuid works. However in your "ideal Linux" every executable would start with EUID of the owner of the executable, which would make every executable on your system a setuid executable.



        This would clearly cause a lot of problems, to mention a few: every root owned executable would need to do UID checks and call setuid() to set process' EUID back to non-root if the program shouldn't have any additional privileges; users can not make executables available to another users, as the process would run with wrong EUID; configuration errors and bad practices would have critical consequences (such as chmod 777 would now also allow access to any files owned by user). And these are more.



        Normal permissions without setuid binaries need some other mechanism to allow unprivileged users to do privileged operations. Setuid binaries allow such privilege elevation and access control is implemented in program logic.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted






          Both your examples explain how setuid works. However in your "ideal Linux" every executable would start with EUID of the owner of the executable, which would make every executable on your system a setuid executable.



          This would clearly cause a lot of problems, to mention a few: every root owned executable would need to do UID checks and call setuid() to set process' EUID back to non-root if the program shouldn't have any additional privileges; users can not make executables available to another users, as the process would run with wrong EUID; configuration errors and bad practices would have critical consequences (such as chmod 777 would now also allow access to any files owned by user). And these are more.



          Normal permissions without setuid binaries need some other mechanism to allow unprivileged users to do privileged operations. Setuid binaries allow such privilege elevation and access control is implemented in program logic.






          share|improve this answer












          Both your examples explain how setuid works. However in your "ideal Linux" every executable would start with EUID of the owner of the executable, which would make every executable on your system a setuid executable.



          This would clearly cause a lot of problems, to mention a few: every root owned executable would need to do UID checks and call setuid() to set process' EUID back to non-root if the program shouldn't have any additional privileges; users can not make executables available to another users, as the process would run with wrong EUID; configuration errors and bad practices would have critical consequences (such as chmod 777 would now also allow access to any files owned by user). And these are more.



          Normal permissions without setuid binaries need some other mechanism to allow unprivileged users to do privileged operations. Setuid binaries allow such privilege elevation and access control is implemented in program logic.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Sep 25 at 11:39









          sebasth

          7,12131745




          7,12131745






















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              The marked answer perfectly answered my question. What I put here is the extra logic that is helpful to me in explaining the existence of the SUID permission with regard to the changing password scenario.




              1. In Linux, executable bin files are supposed to be run by different users.




                For example, /usr/bin/nano is a bin for a text editor, it makes sense that this same executable bin file can be executed by different users (why make copies of the same bin file to each user's home filesystem?)





              2. Even though many users should be able to use the same bin file, the process started by that bin file should have different permissions on a file.




                For example, userA and userB should both be able to create two nano processes by executing the same /usr/bin/nano bin file. However, userA's nano process should allow userA to modify his own files and only his own files and vice versa.





              This calls for a mechanism by which a process should apply the same permission that the user who started that process has on a file to that file (instead of the permission of the user who owns the executable bin file which was executed to create the process).




              In Linux, each process has the RUID. The RUID is the id of the user which starts that process. By this logic, the RUID of a process should be the user whose permission on a file is used by that process (e.g. A process decides what it can do to a file based on what its RUID user can do to that file).



              However, in the case of changing password, RUID alone isn't enough because:




              1. /etc/shadow file can't be modified by anyone but root.

              2. Any users want to change password need to do that through executing /usr/bin/passwd executable bin file. This program's logic makes sure an underprivileged user can change his and only his password.

              3. No users except root can change this logic since only root can write to this bin file.

              4. If userA executes /usr/bin/passwd, he will start a passwd process whose RUID is userA.

              5. However, since userA is not allowed to write to /etc/shadow, the passwd process he starts can't write to this file either.


              This calls for a mechanism by which a process decides its permissions to a file based on another user's permissions on that file (instead of the permissions of the user who started the process).




              In Linux, the permission a process has on a file is taken from the permission the EUID has on that file.



              With EUID, root can now use SUID permission to allow userA to start a passwd process that has the EUID set to root. This effectively allows the passwd process started by userA to modify the /etc/shadow file.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                The marked answer perfectly answered my question. What I put here is the extra logic that is helpful to me in explaining the existence of the SUID permission with regard to the changing password scenario.




                1. In Linux, executable bin files are supposed to be run by different users.




                  For example, /usr/bin/nano is a bin for a text editor, it makes sense that this same executable bin file can be executed by different users (why make copies of the same bin file to each user's home filesystem?)





                2. Even though many users should be able to use the same bin file, the process started by that bin file should have different permissions on a file.




                  For example, userA and userB should both be able to create two nano processes by executing the same /usr/bin/nano bin file. However, userA's nano process should allow userA to modify his own files and only his own files and vice versa.





                This calls for a mechanism by which a process should apply the same permission that the user who started that process has on a file to that file (instead of the permission of the user who owns the executable bin file which was executed to create the process).




                In Linux, each process has the RUID. The RUID is the id of the user which starts that process. By this logic, the RUID of a process should be the user whose permission on a file is used by that process (e.g. A process decides what it can do to a file based on what its RUID user can do to that file).



                However, in the case of changing password, RUID alone isn't enough because:




                1. /etc/shadow file can't be modified by anyone but root.

                2. Any users want to change password need to do that through executing /usr/bin/passwd executable bin file. This program's logic makes sure an underprivileged user can change his and only his password.

                3. No users except root can change this logic since only root can write to this bin file.

                4. If userA executes /usr/bin/passwd, he will start a passwd process whose RUID is userA.

                5. However, since userA is not allowed to write to /etc/shadow, the passwd process he starts can't write to this file either.


                This calls for a mechanism by which a process decides its permissions to a file based on another user's permissions on that file (instead of the permissions of the user who started the process).




                In Linux, the permission a process has on a file is taken from the permission the EUID has on that file.



                With EUID, root can now use SUID permission to allow userA to start a passwd process that has the EUID set to root. This effectively allows the passwd process started by userA to modify the /etc/shadow file.






                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  The marked answer perfectly answered my question. What I put here is the extra logic that is helpful to me in explaining the existence of the SUID permission with regard to the changing password scenario.




                  1. In Linux, executable bin files are supposed to be run by different users.




                    For example, /usr/bin/nano is a bin for a text editor, it makes sense that this same executable bin file can be executed by different users (why make copies of the same bin file to each user's home filesystem?)





                  2. Even though many users should be able to use the same bin file, the process started by that bin file should have different permissions on a file.




                    For example, userA and userB should both be able to create two nano processes by executing the same /usr/bin/nano bin file. However, userA's nano process should allow userA to modify his own files and only his own files and vice versa.





                  This calls for a mechanism by which a process should apply the same permission that the user who started that process has on a file to that file (instead of the permission of the user who owns the executable bin file which was executed to create the process).




                  In Linux, each process has the RUID. The RUID is the id of the user which starts that process. By this logic, the RUID of a process should be the user whose permission on a file is used by that process (e.g. A process decides what it can do to a file based on what its RUID user can do to that file).



                  However, in the case of changing password, RUID alone isn't enough because:




                  1. /etc/shadow file can't be modified by anyone but root.

                  2. Any users want to change password need to do that through executing /usr/bin/passwd executable bin file. This program's logic makes sure an underprivileged user can change his and only his password.

                  3. No users except root can change this logic since only root can write to this bin file.

                  4. If userA executes /usr/bin/passwd, he will start a passwd process whose RUID is userA.

                  5. However, since userA is not allowed to write to /etc/shadow, the passwd process he starts can't write to this file either.


                  This calls for a mechanism by which a process decides its permissions to a file based on another user's permissions on that file (instead of the permissions of the user who started the process).




                  In Linux, the permission a process has on a file is taken from the permission the EUID has on that file.



                  With EUID, root can now use SUID permission to allow userA to start a passwd process that has the EUID set to root. This effectively allows the passwd process started by userA to modify the /etc/shadow file.






                  share|improve this answer












                  The marked answer perfectly answered my question. What I put here is the extra logic that is helpful to me in explaining the existence of the SUID permission with regard to the changing password scenario.




                  1. In Linux, executable bin files are supposed to be run by different users.




                    For example, /usr/bin/nano is a bin for a text editor, it makes sense that this same executable bin file can be executed by different users (why make copies of the same bin file to each user's home filesystem?)





                  2. Even though many users should be able to use the same bin file, the process started by that bin file should have different permissions on a file.




                    For example, userA and userB should both be able to create two nano processes by executing the same /usr/bin/nano bin file. However, userA's nano process should allow userA to modify his own files and only his own files and vice versa.





                  This calls for a mechanism by which a process should apply the same permission that the user who started that process has on a file to that file (instead of the permission of the user who owns the executable bin file which was executed to create the process).




                  In Linux, each process has the RUID. The RUID is the id of the user which starts that process. By this logic, the RUID of a process should be the user whose permission on a file is used by that process (e.g. A process decides what it can do to a file based on what its RUID user can do to that file).



                  However, in the case of changing password, RUID alone isn't enough because:




                  1. /etc/shadow file can't be modified by anyone but root.

                  2. Any users want to change password need to do that through executing /usr/bin/passwd executable bin file. This program's logic makes sure an underprivileged user can change his and only his password.

                  3. No users except root can change this logic since only root can write to this bin file.

                  4. If userA executes /usr/bin/passwd, he will start a passwd process whose RUID is userA.

                  5. However, since userA is not allowed to write to /etc/shadow, the passwd process he starts can't write to this file either.


                  This calls for a mechanism by which a process decides its permissions to a file based on another user's permissions on that file (instead of the permissions of the user who started the process).




                  In Linux, the permission a process has on a file is taken from the permission the EUID has on that file.



                  With EUID, root can now use SUID permission to allow userA to start a passwd process that has the EUID set to root. This effectively allows the passwd process started by userA to modify the /etc/shadow file.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Sep 25 at 13:46









                  Tran Triet

                  808




                  808












                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Bahrain

                      Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay