[bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Comment # 2 on bug 10406 from teo8976@gmail.com

Thank you for improving my terrible phrasing of the bug title and for taking it
finally into consideration.


That all is very interesting (no sarchasm here), but still leaves me (and most
other non-hacker, non-sysadmin-literate but still kind-of-know-what-im-doing 
users that just want to use Wireshark to capture a few packets) with a
question: what the f*** should I do, then?

Please keep in mind that we are (or at least I am) talking about the specific
case of Wireshark as it comes packaged for Ubuntu and similar
debian-based-or-similar DESKTOP linux distros here. Not wireshark in general in
all possible OSes and use scenarios (including a computer shared by a lot of
people that barely know each other) which of course present a lot of caveats as
you describe.


As an example (just out of the top of my mind, but there are many others),
consider what happens when I run apport to report a bug. At some point it asks
me whether I want to include some logs that contain information that can help
developers investigate the bug - but that also may potentially contain sensible
information. When I choose Yes, it needs some privileges to read those files
(now I don't know whether they are root or somewhere-below-root privileges), so
it asks me for the password. And that's it. Where is the risk?
If I let a guest use my computer, and he happens to run that program, even by
mistake, he won't be able to grant it those privileges because he needs my sudo
password. So, no possible attack by malicious user. And how could any malicious
software (other than the one asking for the password and obtaining the
privileges) possibly use those privileges?
I think the same reasoning applies to Wireshark.
Whoever I allow to occasionally use my computer without my supervision, even if
he runs Wireshark, won't be able to grant it the privileges for capturing
packets when asked to, unless he knows my password. 


So, that's the mechanism that all programs needing special privileges use in
Ubuntu, and the Ubuntu packaged version of wireshark should come with that
mechanims by default. Of course the possibility to change that in favour of
other mechanisms based on specific needs is much appreciated.

But what certainly cannot be the default is that:
- you run the program normally and you are unable to do the most obvious thing
you need the program for (capturing packets of your main network device) 
- at first sight you don't have the slightest clue why and may waste a lot of
time figuring out (not my case, I simply ran it as root so I got to the
following point) (but I guess this is also covered somewhere in the help) 
- if you do run it as root you're told you shouldn't and you're linked to an
8000 characters page that you need to read and fully understand in order to
take the right decision just to get the obvious behavior that you would expect
in the first place 


If I understand correctly, the "usual ubuntu way" which I am claiming for
should be this one, right?:
> A mechanism in which dumpcap isn't granted special privileges by default, and in which Wireshark/TShark/etc. can run some helper program that runs another program with sufficient privileges (and requires you to provide your password, e.g. some GUI program for Wireshark and sudo for TShark/dumpcap itself) might *somewhat* give you that,

I don't quite get why "*somewhat*".

> although you'd want to make sure it doesn't leave you open to the dancing pigs problem:

I don't see how it could. If I understand correctly, the "dancing pig problem"
is when security relies upon some prompt that is guaranteed to be displayed by
the system regardless of the program that triggers that prompt, but a
(malicious) program may trick the user into choosing the wrong option even if
it can't hide the system's prompt/warning by adding some distracting or
confusing information. Right? But here we're talking about Wireshark and only
Wireshark asking for a permission. How could that in any way allow any other
program to misuse that? Perhaps I'm missing something.


As an aside note:

""
I./a. Installing dumpcap without allowing non-root users to capture packets
(...)
This is the default on Debian systems.

I./b. Installing dumpcap and allowing non-root users to capture packets
(...)
This is the preferred way of installation if Wireshark/Tshark will be used for
capturing and displaying packets at the same time
""

I see a contraddiction here. If I./b is the preferred way (if WS will be used
for... which is the most common case), then why isn't it the default on Debian
systems? (or at least strongly-desktop-oriented derivatives such as Ubuntu)



P.S.

"The installation method can be changed any time by running:
 dpkg-reconfigure wireshark-common"

It's not entirely clear (to me at least) whether that command will switch to
the "I./b" mode (which is what I guess when you say "the dpkg-reconfigure will
give you that") or it will let you choose between any of those two modes (which
is what I'd evince from the linked page).

---

      You are receiving this mail because:

• You are watching all bug changes.