Re: XFREE86 can block reserved ports

abelitsPHOBOS.ILLTEL.DENVER.CO.US

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Munil Shah: "Re: Vulnerability in WINS web server, NT4.0"
• Previous message: Ronald L. Parker: "Netscape Referer header considered harmful?"
• In reply to: Willy TARREAU: "XFREE86 can block reserved ports"

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Willy TARREAU wrote:

> Hello, and sorry if it is already known stuff.
>
>    XFree86, as any X-server, uses TCP ports 6000 and above to listen to,
> waiting for incoming connections. Any user can choose his display number
> simply by starting "X :0" or "X :2500" or "X :any_display".
> The X server automatically chooses its port by adding the display number to
> 6000. But as the ports are 16-bits coded, port 65536 equals 0, so displays
> 59536 to 65535 generate listening sockets on ports 0 to 5999.
>
> And as the X-server runs suid root, any user can use it to block known ports
> before a daemon starts using it. For example, it would be possible to use
> display 59556 = port 20 to prevent ftp server from transfering data with
> remote systems.

This is one more reason to remove setuid bit from X server. xdm starts
local X server just fine.

> It is even possible to run a server on any port <= 1023
> to disable local rlogin/rsh from the local host.

Considering the level of security provided by checking outgoing port
number, creating trouble for the use of this feature can be considered a
security enhancement ;-)

--
Alex

• Next message: Munil Shah: "Re: Vulnerability in WINS web server, NT4.0"
• Previous message: Ronald L. Parker: "Netscape Referer header considered harmful?"
• In reply to: Willy TARREAU: "XFREE86 can block reserved ports"