[24335] in North American Network Operators' Group
[unix security] Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex P. Rudnev)
Wed Jun 16 14:55:25 1999
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:41:32 +0400 (MSD)
From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex@Relcom.EU.net>
To: Brett_Watson@enron.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <88256792.006416E8.00@pinto.enron.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> >Unix machine... drop all services you don't need, run your services not
> >as the root, install secure level or read-onl.y file system - and no
> >problems.
>
> this is just rediculous. it's not as simple as "no problems". the things
> you state are rather obvious but for a system to be used as *anything*
> (cache, web server, video server, etc) you simply have to have certain
> ports open, many times simple udp ports. locking down down services/ports,
> and running anything you can as non-root certainly goes a long way in
> protecting the system but it's just not that cut and dried.
The services is not the problem - use overflow-protected function stack
(this exist now), use security-level to prevent any unaucthorised changes
out of maintanance windows (exists now), and use the systems allowed to
run non-root processes for the outer services (no www, no dns, no caching
need high privileges; mail relaying don't need it too, pop or stream
service don't need it too, etc). On the other hand, it's the open system
- I can be sure the program stack is really overflow-protected (this
means - you can't make wrong things even if you can overflow the stack),
the file systems are really protected from the changes, the services
really have not extra privileges. Non-open systems have some benefits for
the first time because hacker's can't investigate the source codes, but
then, a few years later, it appeared to have a huge problems. It's
amazing to read about worms, mail viruses, etc working in the Unix
environment, btw (through I can't blame mr. Gates for it).
>
> i'll give you and vadim full credit for being math wizards, or scientists
> (which i clearly am not) but don't choose your next career in the
> computer/network security industry. :)
I can't speak about Vadim, but the security industry have often very
strange approach to the security itself. They close the unexisting holes,
but often keep open a very dangerous ways to intrude. And then, do you
know the better firewall in the world? It's the scissors.
