--------- Original Message -------- From: Matt Emmerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow Date: 18/09/04 05:41
> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Matt Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Avleen Vig" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:22 AM > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow > > > > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Emmerton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > > I disagree. It really comes down to how secure you want FreeBSD to be, > and > > > the attitude of "we don't need to protect against this case because > anyone > > > who does this is asking for trouble anyway" is one of the main reason > why > > > security holes exist in products today. (Someone else had brought this > up > > > much earlier on in the thread.) > > > > You haven't been paying close enough attention to the discussion. To > > exploit this "security problem" you have to be root. If it's an > > external attacker, you're already owned. > > I'm well aware of that fact. That's still not a reason to protect against > the problem. > > If your leaky bucket has 10 holes in it, would you at least try and plug > some of them? > > -- > Matt Emmerton So should we stop the command ``shutdown -h now'' from working for root? After all, he can DoS the system with it? How about this: let's disallow root from loading kernel modules! That way this can't ever happen. Even better: Why don't we just not boot into a usable environment! Then we have NO security holes. You guys are failing to see: ROOT HAS OMNIPOTENT POWER. SOMEBODY MUST HAVE OMNIPOTENT POWER. THIS IS NOT A BUG. THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ON. Not to be sarcastic, but you guys are missing the problem. The problem was that someone was unaware of a kernel API. When you start programming for the kernel, you need to make sure that the code is secure. If you think this is a problem, take a look at init(8) and learn about securelevels. What happened: someone was unfamiliar with the syscall API. They crashed their system. They screamed wildly, believing they'd found a buffer overflow, when they'd merely overloaded the function stack and screwed up the call. This caused the system to reboot. Solution: make it more clear that syscalls take only 8 arguments. Make it clear that you can pass arguments in a struct to a syscall. Make it clear that many/most syscalls do this anyway. If there's beef on this, take it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Devon _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
