full-disclosure - Partial Solution to SUID Problems

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: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312070311430.13884@suse.bluegenesis.com>
From: todd at hostopia.com (Todd Burroughs)
Subject: Partial Solution to SUID Problems 

> Sometimes, old and silly rules aren't just about security.
>
> The *real* reason for the "always su from a user account" rule isn't to stop
> exploits.  It's so you have an audit trail of who did what.

This is exactly why I need su.  We have about 20 people with root access,
only about 8 or 10 that regularly change things.  You need an audit trail,
we all make mistakes and it's a lot easier and faster (really important
on a production system) if you find out who did it and talk to them.

If you only have a couple admins, direct root logins should work fine.
It's still nice to know what user logged in, if that account is
compromised, at least you know.  With root logins, you don't know who
is logging in.

I agree that it doesn't add much in the way of security, but I've found
that most problems are caused by the admins.  I know I've done my share
and I've gotten that call saying "what the f*** did you just do do ns2?".
(Usually, I fix things I break before anyone notices though ;-)

Also, I haven't looked at the source for su, but it *should* be a fairly
simple program and therefore easier to secure.  (compare to X, kernel, etc.)

Todd