NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/os/vms/19468

Text File | 1992-12-17 | 4.4 KB | 99 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!dxcern!dscomsa!zeus02.desy.de!hallam
From: [e-mail] (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: HELP!!! Security problem for gurus.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (usenet)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:09:32 GMT
Lines: 86

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Bochnik
(Info Systems)) writes:

|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|>>
|>>In article <[e-mail]>,
|>>PSI%ITAPAC.22800002::PITCLS::[e-mail]
|>>(Adriano Santoni) writes:
|>>
|>>|>      I need to avoid certain people to scan a directory of mine.
|>>|>      This could seem a very trivial issue, if it was not for
|>>|>      the following:
|>>|>      o  Some users of mine have (and need to retain)
|>>|>         *ALL* privileges
|>>|>      o  I don't want to clear the DIRECTORY file characteristic bit
|>>|>      o  I don't want to do encrypting or any other tricky thing
|>>|>      o  I want to be able to access my directory whenever I need to
|>>|>
|>>I have a few suggestions:
|>>
|>>   1. Set VMS protections and make everyone with privs promise not
|>>      to look in your directory.
|>>
|>>   2. Keep the directory on removable media and keep it in
|>>      your pocket or a locked drawer.
|>>
|>>   3. Don't put anything on the computer that could get you
|>>      in trouble or embarrass you.

Is this a problem though?

If I was running a system for a bank one of the things I would want to know is
that a user did *NOT* have private files, esp of the "run this prog instead of
the real one" type. This requirement is tantamount to requesting a trapdoor for
trojan horses.

If you have private data then use crypt. That way the sysop at least knows that
there is not a program hidden inside. If you want to hide progs, tough, sysops
can alarm that pretty easily.


|>You could mess around with a privately mounhted disk for your stuff, but that
|>|>would not stop others from mouting it when you are not there.
|>
|>The real problem is why do they have to have all priv's?  He had a similar
|>problem here, when my boss and I took over a system that was set up long
|>before we got here.  Privs and security was amok, due to the fact that the
|>previous managers needed to get the system operational, so they lowered
|>security (a bad idea).  We came in and had to clean it up.  One of our
|>operators became the security guru real fast.  We had to take privs away from
|>|>users and applications programmers a little at a time, educate them as to
|>what
|>they could and could not do, and give them some access as it was needed.
|>
|>Unless your users are doing some really strange stuff, the systems manager
|>should have God privs, and they should not.  They have the possibility of
|>taking down/ crashing the machine too easily if they have privs and do not
|>know what they are doing.  Too many people with privs gets you into the finger
|>|>pointing mode, where "funny" things start happening (files disappearing, for
|>|>example) and no one will own up to making a mistake.  This is a BAD
|>situation
|>to be in (we were in it and it sucked).
|>
|>Sorry if I sound like I'm on my soap box, but users need to be protected from
|>|>themselves (imho).

I agree with the above stuff, I have written pretty heavy system apps and not
required system privs to build them. This is one of the main advantages of VMS -
just how far you can get without privs.

Only thing that I ever wanted privs for was to run other peoples stuff where
they had been given every priv under the sun. Some of the stuff got pretty hairy
and mysterious system crashes occured. Remember that VMS is only secure and
stable so long as the users are operating a low priv levels. Give people
EXQUOTA, BYPASS etc and you give them the capabilty to crash the machine.

The only tasks I can think of where syspriv is necessary for code development is
to do the sort of thing that should be done on a separate machine altogether.
Stuff like device drivers etc where you are going to take the machine down each
time you cock it up. Good use for Vaxstation 2000s :-) !



--

Phill Hallam-Baker