procmail (in)security

[Todd Underwood]

fred,

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Fred Yankowski wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:40:11AM -0500, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > 2) use something like procmail that has these kinds of properties 
> > (procmail has historically been a security disaster, so i would stay away 
> > from it if possibly--consider maildrop).
> 
> What's your basis for calling procmail a security disaster?  I use
> procmail all the time and, if you're right, I want to know what risks
> I'm taking.  I already know that procmail's "recipe" language is
> confusing, but in what ways is it insecure?

procmail has a relatively bad security record.  the code is complex (and 
according to some of the better code auditors, virtually unauditable).  


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=procmail+security+problems
http://security-archive.merton.ox.ac.uk/security-audit-199902/0063.html

just a couple of places to start.

since i run qmail primarily for its security properties, introducing 
something as complex and with such a poor security record as procmail is 
definitely a no-no.

and, as you said, the recipies are complex.  very few people i know are 
able to get them right with any regularity (and testing always involves 
bouncing or losing mail).

i'd take maildrop or just .qmail files any day.

t.


-- 

todd underwood, sr. vp & cto
oso grande technologies, inc.
todd at osogrande.com

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
  	    --Edmund Burke, Speech at County Meeting of Bucks, 1784.