Re: Request for discussion.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Timothy Newsham: "X authentication"
• Previous message: Bill Nickless: "Re: Need source routing prog"
• In reply to: Casper Dik: "Re: Request for discussion."

On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Casper Dik wrote:

> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >Not if "Real OS(tm)" == Linux. (which of course has the best procfs money can't
> >> >buy).
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Which is why Linux procfs has tons of security holes.
> >> 
> >> Casper
> >> 
> >
> >Such as?
> 
> 
> Hm, they seem to be fix now.  In early rleases the permissions
> of the fd and cd and exec files weren't right.
> 
> Now it uses some ugly hack that looks like the modes on the symlink
> are 700 (lrwx------)  which only seems to work on the funny symlinks
> under /proc.
> 
> Hm, it just occured to me that, as root, hijackling connections under Linux
> is real simple, you just open the right /proc/pid/fd/<num>

Indeed ... I don't think there really is a lack of root-able ways of getting
*anything* hijacked or somesuch on *any* machine, regardless of procfs usage
or not :)

 /----------------------------------------------------------------------\
<> Stephan K. Zitz                  <>  My mind is my best friend...    <>
<> zitz@infinity.ivdev.com          <>   And my worst enemy... GABBPUY! <>
<>        Integrated Visions -- Watch out, is on its way....            <>
 \======================================================================/
 GCS/M d-- p c++++ l+++ u++ e+ m-(++) s !n h++ f(++)* !g w+++ t+++ r+ y+(*)

• Next message: Timothy Newsham: "X authentication"
• Previous message: Bill Nickless: "Re: Need source routing prog"
• In reply to: Casper Dik: "Re: Request for discussion."