procmail (in)security

[Herman Oosthuysen]

Hmm, procmail has been around for a very long time.  I don't think there 
is much reason to worry about it.  Speaking of the last 3 years, it has 
never crashed or lost my mail.

Todd Underwood wrote:
> 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.
>