|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: Cobalt RaQ 3 security hole?
From: Brian Behlendorf (brian
COLLAB.NET)Date: Fri Jul 21 2000 - 19:05:16 CDT
- Next message: Kurt Weiske: "Re: Microsoft Security Bulletin (MS00-043)"
- Previous message: vali: "blackice ignoring port 113"
- In reply to: Joshua Ellis: "Re: Cobalt RaQ 3 security hole?"
- Next in thread: Francis [loaded.net]: "Re: Cobalt RaQ 3 security hole?"
- Reply: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: Cobalt RaQ 3 security hole?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Joshua Ellis wrote:
> That's the standard RaQ install. If you do a /usr/sbin/http -V you'll see
> "-D BIG_SECURITY_HOLE". It's how their mod_perl-based admin modules work.
> If you look in /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/Cobalt you'll see they modify
> a lot of files writable only by root, and HUP a lot of processes owned by
> root... Apache has to be running as root for you to do that.
Not really true; one can write a setuid C program that sends a signal to
restart the Apache process, and is small enough to be (close to) provably
secure. Small setuid binaries for other needs for root would be the way
to go. One has to be careful to design it so that it can't be used for
other unsafe purposes, but that's far more containable than running Apache
as root.
Brian
- Next message: Kurt Weiske: "Re: Microsoft Security Bulletin (MS00-043)"
- Previous message: vali: "blackice ignoring port 113"
- In reply to: Joshua Ellis: "Re: Cobalt RaQ 3 security hole?"
- Next in thread: Francis [loaded.net]: "Re: Cobalt RaQ 3 security hole?"
- Reply: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: Cobalt RaQ 3 security hole?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]