|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: snooper watchers
Leo Bicknell (bicknell
ussenterprise.async.vt.edu)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 00:18:16 -0500 (EST)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Nicholas West: "No Subject"
- Previous message: bob
unix.worldcom.com: "8-bit characters in addresses"
- In reply to: Timothy Jones: "Re: snooper watchers"
- Next in thread: Christopher Samuel: "Re: snooper watchers"
> > You really need to do a seperation of the checkee from the checkor. > > If someone has root access on the machine, the could basicly do anything that > > is needed to cover their tracks. I just had a thought. What about makeing it impossible for even root to cover his/her tracks? My specific thought was writing things like accounting/audit logs directly to say a WORM drive. Due to the write once nature any auditing/accounting done by the system when the hacker obtained root access would be on the disk, and even root could not erase it after the fact, as it's write once. Of course, once root they could unmount that drive or something to disable logging from that point on, but you would always get at least the process of becoming root. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknellvt.edu | Make a little birdhouse bicknell
csugrad.cs.vt.edu | in your soul...... bicknell
ussenterprise.async.vt.edu | They Might http://ussenterprise.async.vt.edu/~bicknell/ | Be Giants
- Next message: Nicholas West: "No Subject"
- Previous message: bob
unix.worldcom.com: "8-bit characters in addresses"
- In reply to: Timothy Jones: "Re: snooper watchers"
- Next in thread: Christopher Samuel: "Re: snooper watchers"