|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: load.root (loadmodule hole)
Brad Powell (Brad.Powell
Eng.Sun.COM)Fri, 15 Sep 1995 16:12:54 -0700
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Pat The Friendly RedNeck: "Re: load.root (loadmodule hole)"
- Previous message: Fred Blonder: "Re: load.root (loadmodule hole)"
- Maybe in reply to: der Mouse: "load.root (loadmodule hole)"
- Next in thread: Karl Strickland: "Re: load.root (loadmodule hole)"
>From owner-bugtraqCRIMELAB.COM Fri Sep 15 15:46:48 1995 >Am I overlooking something obvious here, or would simply turning off the >set-UID bit on "loadmodule" be an acceptable temporary workaround for >most sites? >----- >Fred Blonder fred
nasirc.hq.nasa.gov > >Hughes STX Corp. (301) 441-4079 >7701 Greenbelt Rd. >Greenbelt, Md. 20770 > turning of the suid bit works *mostly* of course don't expect to be able to run openwindows :-) I say mostly because there is still the problem if the process running is running as root, as well as the problem of if another setuid executable calls loadmodule. Neither of these is as big a problem, but they are still there. Calling system() has never been a smart thing, just a simple thing. Brad ======================================================================= Brad Powell : brad.powell
Sun.COM Sr. Network Security Consultant SunNetworks, Sun Microsystems Inc. ======================================================================= The views expressed are those of the author and may not reflect the views of Sun Microsystems Inc. =======================================================================
- Next message: Pat The Friendly RedNeck: "Re: load.root (loadmodule hole)"
- Previous message: Fred Blonder: "Re: load.root (loadmodule hole)"
- Maybe in reply to: der Mouse: "load.root (loadmodule hole)"
- Next in thread: Karl Strickland: "Re: load.root (loadmodule hole)"