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
| ||
|
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: The 'good worm' from HP On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:34:32 BST, The Central Scroutinizer said: > Would it not be better to have a standard secure backdoor provided by a > security package that could downloaded or installed by disk and works hand > in hand with port scanning software, if this is really necassary. I am No, it would not be a good idea. > supprised Microsoft have not released such a peice of software; maybe a > third party have. Many third parties have done so, going all the way back to BackOrifice. Think it through - there's 2 basic possibilities: 1) The machine is a Windows machine that's centrally administered and controlled via Active Directory or similar system, as in many corporate environments. In the AD world, it's well understood how to push fixes via Group Policy, and other central-management schemes already have their own schemes for doing it (even if it's a 'for i in `cat boxes.to.update`; do ssh $i...'). So in these environments, you don't need a backdoor. 2) The box isn't a member of an Active Directory or other similar distributed-management scheme. In this case, you don't want a back door, because you have no sane way to validate who's doing the push of software. So you can't securely use a backdoor. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040823/5ba29431/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists