+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #905008 +++ Description of problem: The file /usr/sbin/uuidd should be owned by root.root: -rwxr-xr-x. 1 uuidd uuidd 28464 Dec 3 18:54 /usr/sbin/uuidd Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): uuidd-1.39-35.el5.x86_64 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. ls -l /usr/sbin/uuidd Actual results: File is owned by uuidd.uuidd. Expected results: File is owned by root.root. Additional info: The init script drops permissions before calling the binary file, so there is no privilege escalation uuidd -> root.
Dumb question perhaps, but can you explain why this is a *bug* ? Is there some actual problem here, other than proliferation of UIDs? I don't know for sure that dropping a UID is something we can do in RHEL6 at this point, is there some policy?
I think this is a bug because /usr/sbin is on root's path, and the program might be executed directly by root. As the binary is writable by the uuidd user and thus could have been modified, this might allow the uuidd user to gain root privileges. The separate account is harmless, and it allows the daemon to run with reduced privileges. I don't think we can safely remove UIDs because we'd have to scan the entire file system for remaining uses, which is impractical. Without that, the UID might get reused in the passwd database, potentially causing a security leak.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2014-1222.html