[42468] in bugtraq
RE: MySQL 5.0 information leak?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Burton Strauss)
Thu Jan 26 20:12:41 2006
From: "Burton Strauss" <Security@SmallNetSolutions.com>
To: "'Lance James'" <bugtraq@securescience.net>
Cc: "'Bernd Wurst'" <bernd@bwurst.org>, <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:19:53 -0600
Message-ID: <003601c61fcb$e32d8070$648ea8c0@burtonstrauss.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <43D3B755.7060203@securescience.net>
It's not semantics at all. Every password is a piece of undisclosed
information and NOBODY views that as security by obscurity. It's the corner
stone of AAA ... Something you know, something you have, something about
you.
-----Burton
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance James [mailto:bugtraq@securescience.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Burton Strauss
Cc: 'Bernd Wurst'; bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: MySQL 5.0 information leak?
Burton Strauss wrote:
>I'd get a refund on your coinage... root's password is not security by
>obscurity, it is an undisclosed piece of information. There is a big
>difference.
>
>
Now we're arguing symantics, undislosed information would also by the MySQL
information leak problem then too, as Bernd doesn't want to disclose such
information to an attacker.
>-----Burton
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lance James [mailto:bugtraq@securescience.net]
>Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:09 PM
>To: Burton Strauss
>Cc: 'Bernd Wurst'; bugtraq@securityfocus.com
>Subject: Re: MySQL 5.0 information leak?
>
>Burton Strauss wrote:
>
>
>
>>Traditionally the schema for a database is NOT secure information.
>>Applications download this information to build queries on the fly.
>>
>>The essential problem is relying on security by obscurity, "I have
>>user accounts (nss) that have publicly available credentials but noone
>>[sic] should be able to see how the database really is organized".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Denying the security through obscurity is not applicable could be
incorrect.
>It does have it's place i.e. what's your root password?
>
>In WebAppSec, security by obscurity assists in deterring attackers, and
>buying some time. So if one can prevent full disclosure of the schema
>of the db, that can be useful combined with security in depth.
>
>my two cents.
>
>-Lance
>
>
>
>>-----Burton
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bernd Wurst [mailto:bernd@bwurst.org]
>>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:05 AM
>>To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
>>Subject: MySQL 5.0 information leak?
>>
>>Hi.
>>
>>I just upgraded to mysql 5.0.18 and started using all those cool new
>>features. :)
>>
>>But concerning VIEWs, I think the information_schema is too verbose to
>>the user. I started creating a VIEW that searches information from
>>several tables, mangles the data and gives the user a clean table with
>>his data. So far, so good.
>>
>>But I only give the user access to this VIEW, so he cannot see what's
>>done to get his data from several tables.
>>
>>SHOW CREATE VIEW myview;
>>does (correctly) result in an error that the user is not allowed to
>>see the CREATE VIEW.
>>
>>But SELECT * FROM information_schema.views; returns the full query
>>that ceates the desired VIEW.
>>
>>I think of this as a security issue because I have user accounts (nss)
>>that have publicly available credentials but noone should be able to
>>see how the database really is organized.
>>
>>What do you think of this? Bug?
>>
>>cu, Bernd
>>
>>--
>>Windows Error 019: User error. It's not our fault. Is not! Is not!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
