full-disclosure - !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning

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.GSO.4.43.0408261218230.27378-100000@tundra.winternet.com>
From: dufresne at winternet.com (Ron DuFresne)
Subject: !SPAM! Automated ssh scanning

Then we are in agreement sir <smile>.  Most folks 'install' the
kitchensink, needed or not, with little or no knowledge of their level of
exposure.


Exposed systems need special care taken, as well as 'client' machines.


Thanks,

Ron DuFresne


On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

> Ron DuFresne wrote:
>
> >
> >If your uasers are not trustable, then they should not have access to
> >local systems of yours.  Once a person has a shell, then they are 95% to
> >root.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'm not sure I entirely agree with what you're saying.
>
> Scratch that - I'm sure I don't agree with what you're actually saying
> here -- though I probably agree with what I think you mean.
>
> If you mean that most default installs have so many packages and that
> many of those packages have methods that most people don't know about of
> getting around security barriers, then I agree with you.
>
> If you mean that even having a shell on a system means that the person
> will eventually get root access, I'm forced to disagree.  It depends on
> a number of things; including packages installed, their configuration;
> the presence of SUID programs; the ability to compile/run code...
>
> Actually locking down a system is not easy, but unlike with MS Windows,
> you're not going to break the system by doing it properly.  (Read the
> filesystem heirarchy standard for some ideas on why that is.)
>
> So, if someone can log into a shell on any *nix system and gain root --
> there's still something wrong.  It can't just be written off as "well if
> you can get shell you can get root, so don't let them get shell"...
> that's a cop-out argument and if that's the case, then why are we even
> bothering to secure anything anyway?!?  The shell is just an interface -
> it's security status is only as good as the tools available to it and
> it's configuration.
>
>              -Barry
>
> p.s. Not trying to ruffle feathers, simply calling it like I see it.
>
>
>
>
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
	***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***

OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.