bugtraq - Re[4]: 11 years of inetd default insecurity?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:56:27 +0400
From: 3APA3A <3APA3A@...urity.nnov.ru>
To: psz@...hs.usyd.edu.au (Paul Szabo)
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re[4]: 11 years of inetd default insecurity?

Hello Paul,

Monday, September 8, 2003, 11:11:12 PM, you wrote:

>>
>> -s limits number of processes invoked from same IP. You can additionally
>> use  -c  to  prevent distributed attack. It doesn't allow to DoS box and
>> doesn't disable service for 10 minutes.

PS> Note that my (DEC/Compaq/HP Tru64) inetd does not have -c or -s options.
PS> The only safe way is to use a sensible -R and tcp_wrappers. Or upgrade to
PS> Linux and xinetd...

It  proofs code needs to be rewritten. I don't understand why limitation
is  on  per  minute,  not per second base. Oh no - I understand. This is
result  of  the  code  was  written  more  than 10 years ago. But what I
completely  misunderstand  is  how  disabling  service  for  10  minutes
increases security. It's because I'm green, stupid and brain damaged.

IMHO  reasonable  behavior is limiting a number of requests accepted per
second  without  disabling service. But this code became a kind of saint
cow.  Only hope is young monsters like xinetd will rid this dinosaur off
as a result of evolution.

-- 
/3APA3A