Re: A new model for ports and kernel security?
From: Krzysztof Halasa (khc_at_pm.waw.pl)
Date: 10/01/03
- Previous message: Andreas Schwarz: "Extremely low disk performance on K7S5A Pro"
- In reply to: John Lange: "A new model for ports and kernel security?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: John Lange <john.lange@bighostbox.com> Date: 01 Oct 2003 22:10:02 +0200
John Lange <john.lange@bighostbox.com> writes:
> My understanding is that this is a hold-over from ancient days gone past
> where it was meant to be a security feature. Since only root processes
> can listen on ports less than 1024, you could "trust" any connection
> made to a low port to be "secure". In other words, nobody could be
> "bluffing" on a telnet port that didn't have root access therefore it
> was "safe" to type in your password.
It was for rlogin-like accesses, too - the server knew the client is
a suid and trusted program.
Think - NFS.
> Are not processes forced to run as root (at least at startup) that have
> security holes in them not the leading cause of "remote root exploits"?
Not commonly. They usually change ownership to something like www.www
and that is what the exploit gains first.
-- Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Andreas Schwarz: "Extremely low disk performance on K7S5A Pro"
- In reply to: John Lange: "A new model for ports and kernel security?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
