[3268] in WWW Security List Archive

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: NT WWW server Security Holes

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark_W_Loveless@smtp.bnr.com)
Wed Oct 16 16:00:02 1996

From: Mark_W_Loveless@smtp.bnr.com
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 96 12:27:01 CST
To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu, John Allen <JOHNAL@attachmate.com>
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu

     You can configure a WWW server (Unix, NT, otherwise) to be rather 
     secure from OS-type attacks. While risking flames, any NT guru will 
     say an NT box can be secured, and likewise for a Unix guru. So for the 
     sake of arguement let's say that you have a web server fully protected 
     via firewall/packet filtering/etc and can only be accessed two 
     different ways -- remotely through port 80, and sitting right at the 
     console.
     
     Your problem becomes the WWW server software itself. For example, if 
     you have perl.exe in your cgi-bin directory, you can send arbitrary 
     commands -- regardless of platform. Of course your _commands_ have to 
     be platform specific but you get the idea.
     
     A web search on NT security issues will turn up a lot of info, but I'd 
     recommend http://www.genome.wi.mit.edu/WWW/faqs/www-security-faq.html 
     as a starting place for web stuff.
     
     Mark Loveless
     Opinions my own, not my employer


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: NT WWW server Security Holes
Author:  John Allen <JOHNAL@attachmate.com> at foreign
Date:    10/15/96 9:43 PM


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
     
A client of mine recently made the comment to me that NT was a more 
secure Web server than UNIX because it was a newer operating system and 
hackers haven't found any big holes in it yet. Since I have never been a 
fan of "Security through Ignorance", I though I would ask the list if 
there are any known security holes with NT as far as WWW servers go. I 
do know that the Registry is accessible remotely, but is that a default 
setting? Is there any resources on the 'Net that points out potential 
security holes? Is there any known equivilents to the NSCA/phf hole in 
NT??
     
Thanks in advance!!
- -- JA
     
     
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
     
iQCVAwUBMmO5h8EQ+vsH5YJtAQE1ywQAkaMF/Z9frZNRBEoZ23vYLZSF2//CS60n 
spMUNBo1VNcRp2sCxI8NHiziErtwM1TPhsN2azr7p/sVmf9AlQDmPiyS8QvygD2+ 
2lTF4zM5rkIELcT6BADHIC1cwlK+JEzLc2lxh/G2sonhFi7tbpiUKWEGhwWj4fKR 
CO2W5o8kQMQ=
=t+H1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
--  John D. Allen,  Enterprise Systems Consultant,  Attachmate 
Corporation
--  EMail: Johnal@attachmate.com  PGP: Finger -l johnal@attachmate.com 
--  Co-Author, Windows 3.1 Connectivity Secrets, 1994, IDG Books


home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post