| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200504211821.j3LIL3fE005400@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Date: Thu Apr 21 19:21:22 2005 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: bitchx exploit On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:24:06 PDT, Andrew Farmer said: > I have never, ever seen BitchX installed suid, and there's no reason > it would be. SSL clients work just fine without suid. I'm sure there's *plenty* of places that managed to botch permissions on some file or other, causing SSL to not work correctly, and then they chmod +s things that don't work because they know how to wave a dead chicken over the CPU, but they don't know how to *FIX* things. Consider a box that some idiot has done a 'chmod 640 /usr/lib/libssl*'..... (I've not personally seen a BitchX installed this way, but I've seen enough OTHER stuff to convince me it's probably happening. Even came across a setUID /bin/ls that the sysadmin-monkey had done - and I've seen a *vendor* ship a set-UID /bin/tar (so it could set the correct owner/group when extracting). -------------- 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/20050421/fe6fb8fa/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists