I think that saving it in memory can be potentially
exploited and is
something that shouldn't be done.
kdesud is protected against ptrace, at least in KDE 4.5. So
I think the
issue is whether we can trust the Linux kernel's memory
protection.
Also, KDE 4.5's "Keep password" feature
(which is available in
Slackware KDE packages) doesn't allow to re-use the
password for
another command, but only for the already launched
application.
Yes, I mentioned that in my previous reply: the password is maintained
only for one app, only for the current session, and only for the
duratation specified in defaults.h. Not enabling the check box means the
password must be re-entered for the same app, which is the same as the
check box being disabled or invisible. Using kdesu with another app means
retyping the password.
Then it is probably secured enough if
implemented that way. Any idea of the situation in
Trinity?
I can't imagine any changes from KDE3. Is there a way to test?
The fact that the option has been available for many years and still
exists in KDE4 implies the feature is secure. Some distro maintainers
disabled the check box, which is why many users never have seen the
option, but the option has been available for many years from the
untouched upstream KDE sources.
The kdesu --help options reveal that the check box can be disabled by
using the -n parameter. Perhaps a desktop file could be created that
specifies the default. Admins and end-users can override that default by
editing the desktop file or copying the desktop file to their $KDEDIRS
location and editing there. The underlying code would have to be revised
to query that desktop file. That approach might be easier than creating a
KControl option. Even in KControl, the default setting needs to be saved
somewhere.
Darrell
So at it's core this is really a documentation issue. If the dialog box
contained a single line stating the application the password is stored for
and when the password storage will expire then I would be willing to add
the checkbox back. Poorly defined or unknown/obscure behaviour is not a
good thing when dealing with root access ;-)
Tim