Summary: | System of applications autorisation in kwallet | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Unmaintained] kdelibs | Reporter: | Kamil Neczaj <kneczaj> |
Component: | kwallet | Assignee: | Unassigned bugs mailing-list <unassigned-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | wishlist | CC: | lemma, mk.mateng |
Priority: | NOR | ||
Version: | 4.1 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228308 | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
Sentry Crash Report: |
Description
Kamil Neczaj
2008-09-24 22:32:51 UTC
*** Bug 171614 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I agree with quite some of the things you mentioned: Currently kwalletd is pretty insecure once it's opened. Also with most installations of dbus the communication between kwalletd and applications using it can be spyed upon (if eavesdropping is enabled for the session bus). I don't see a solution in providing a system-wide kwalletd or having a per-application wallet though because even like that the problem of "authenticating" an application remains. I've also come to the believe that dbus might not be the best way to provide an interface for managing sensitive data due to aforementioned problems with how it's currently deployed. There's also the problem that there's no guarantee if dbus is running using local sockets (in which case kwalletd is able to find out which PID is sending the request) or some other transport mechanism (like local TCP sockets in which case there's no way to find out who's requesting the password). A solution to this might be resorting to socket-only communication... I do however value your concerns and I'm thinking of ways to implement this properly (and on as many operating systems as possible). Duplicate primarily of Bug 432713, and also of Bug 228308 (different aspects). I've commented on those two bugs why this is problematic to implement. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 432713 *** |