Screen session running as root? (it shouldn’t be) node.js

I think it is a security issue, because that "Aside from the potential of my non-root user account being compromised" can be rather large.

But there are other increased risks beyond that. For example, you've now opened yourself up to a theoretical exploit which allows one to change permissions in the screen socket dir (/var/run/screen on my system, but sometimes /tmp is used). That exploit now has an path to getting root, which it might not otherwise.

sudo has other advantages, if you can train yourself to use it for each command rather than doing sudo su -. It logs actions (which, unless you're logging remotely, doesn't meaningfully increase security, but does give you a trail of what you've done). And it helps prevent accidents by requiring intentional escalation for each command, rather than switching to an entirely-privileged session.

The flip-flopping between "must have mode 777" and "must have mode 775" is caused by strace.

screen is usually a setuid or setgid program. It gains extra privileges when it is executed, which is uses to create socket files and/or modify utmp.

When a process is being traced, setuid and setgid are disabled. The tracing process, controlled by the less-privileged user, can take over the traced process so it must run without its extra privileges to avoid giving the original user too much power.

screen detects whether it is being run with setuid privileges, setgid privileges, or neither, and adjusts its expectation of the directory permissions accordingly.

So this creates a class of problems that can't be easily debugged with strace.

But if you're root, there is a workaround! If the tracing process is running as root, then the traced process can gain privileges normally. So here's what you do:

1. Open 2 new terminals
2. In the first terminal, log in to the remote machine as root
3. In the second terminal, log in to the remote machine as normal user
4. Use ps to get the PID of the normal user's shell process in the second terminal
5. In the first terminal, run strace -f -p SHELLPID
6. In the second terminal, run screen and watch it fail
7. In the first terminal, you now have the strace log you need to find out what's really wrong.

The key addition to the strace command is the -f option, which tells it to trace child processes. You need it to trace the screen that will be a child of the shell process you specified with -p.

I also like to use -ff and specify an output file with -o, as in

strace -ff -o /tmp/screentrace -p SHELLPID

which will create a separate output file for each child process. Afterward you read them with less /tmp/screentrace* and the result is usually cleaner than what you get using a single -f.

UPDATE

Now that I've seen the strace output, I don't know exactly what went wrong, but this line is the most surprising thing in the trace:

chown("/dev/pts/2", 1002, 5)            = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)

A few lines earlier, it created a pty, which was revealed by TIOCGPTN to be number 2.

open("/dev/ptmx", O_RDWR)               = 5
...
ioctl(5, TIOCGPTN, [2])                 = 0
stat("/dev/pts/2", {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(136, 2), ...}) = 0

But it was unable to chown it. I don't know why that chown would fail, but the chown failure does give a plausible reason why screen gave up. You can get a little more information by adding -v to the strace options, and looking at the stat after the TIOCGPTN to see who owns the /dev/pts/ entry.