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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20040617143349.GA80355@rea.mbslab.kiae.ru>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:33:49 +0400
From: "Eygene A. Ryabinkin" <rea@....mbslab.kiae.ru>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Unprivilegued settings for FreeBSD kernel variables


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:13PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> I've already told you that there is no such threat, since the attack
> you describe can only be initiated by someone who already has
> unrestricted access.  Please stop wasting everybody's time.
 You are wrong. Unrestricted access means _really unrestricted_ and
kernel securelevel restricts access to certain places even to root.
IMHO, it's dagerous bug, because some administrators can think "...hmm,
I've enabled the hardest securelevel and even if a hacker would break
into my host with r00t privileges he will be restricted in certain ways.
The only thing he can do is to change /etc/rc.conf (for example) and
_reboot_ my host. But I will notice the reboot." So, for certain
people the following formulae may hold:
         Hardest securelevel + no reboots = good security.
 
 But this bug changes things. One can lower securelevel, do some nasty things
and raise it again _without reboots_. So, as I've already noted, you are wrong.
The bug _gives_ you almost unrestricted access.
	rea


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ