Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- From: koehler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob Koehler)
- Date: 16 Sep 2008 07:26:48 -0500
In article <fdfd102c-8650-41bf-b78b-146b059f2861@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
It is funny you should mention SUID 0.. Yes great care must be taken
when you give a "user controlled" process euid 0.. But you have the
same problem with VMS don't you? Only there the privs are called
BYPASS, SETPRV, CMKRL, SYSPRV etc but essentially those and a few more
mean the same thing as uid/euid 0 - complete control over the system.
Even HP acknowledges this although I can't find the link right now.
That's the point. If you need to do something on UNIX you typically
SUID 0 and right away all kinds of little exploits are wide open.
If you need to do something on VMS you give only what is needed, and
while some of these can be used to gain full control it's not trivial
to get there, and it's easier to make sure it's not possible through
the expoised interface.
Making security easy to get right is an important part of system design.
If you want to be in denial about security flaws in VMS that is your
choice, and you'll be glad to hear we don't have any more conferences
planned so we don't have to update our slides and are unlikely to look
for more bugs in VMS unless a client asks us.
I'm not in denial. I was one of the first to post here, that yes,
you found something. It's you're attititude that quality is
impossible that I won't swallow.
.
- References:
- Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- From: bugs
- Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- Prev by Date: Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- Next by Date: Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- Previous by thread: Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- Next by thread: Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
