full-disclosure - No shell => secure?

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: <20040709224159.062ac999@buddha.localdomain.de>
From: matthias at winterdrache.de (Matthias Benkmann)
Subject: No shell => secure?

Since everybody seems to insist on misunderstanding me I'll try another
approach:

There have been several Linux worms in the past. One of them is
Linux.Slapper. Would my path-renaming scheme have prevented my system from
getting infected?

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/linux.slapper.worm.html

says:"This code requires the presence of the shell command /bin/sh to
properly execute."

So the answer is "Yes, the path-renaming scheme would have protected my
system against infection from Linux.Slapper."

So I have one example to back up my claim. Now it's your turn. Give me a
worm that my scheme would not have protected me against. That's all you
need to do to convince me. Easy, isn't it? No need to give me lengthy
lectures. Just give me one URL. If you can't do that, don't bother
replying. You're wasting your time, because you're telling me things I
already know.

MSB