[31478] in bugtraq
Re[4]: 11 years of inetd default insecurity?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (3APA3A)
Mon Sep 8 18:03:04 2003
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:56:27 +0400
From: 3APA3A <3APA3A@security.nnov.ru>
Reply-To: 3APA3A <3APA3A@security.nnov.ru>
Message-ID: <722336921.20030908235627@security.nnov.ru>
To: psz@maths.usyd.edu.au (Paul Szabo)
Cc: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
In-Reply-To: <200309081911.h88JBCY201696@milan.maths.usyd.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Paul,
Monday, September 8, 2003, 11:11:12 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> -s limits number of processes invoked from same IP. You can additionally
>> use -c to prevent distributed attack. It doesn't allow to DoS box and
>> doesn't disable service for 10 minutes.
PS> Note that my (DEC/Compaq/HP Tru64) inetd does not have -c or -s options.
PS> The only safe way is to use a sensible -R and tcp_wrappers. Or upgrade to
PS> Linux and xinetd...
It proofs code needs to be rewritten. I don't understand why limitation
is on per minute, not per second base. Oh no - I understand. This is
result of the code was written more than 10 years ago. But what I
completely misunderstand is how disabling service for 10 minutes
increases security. It's because I'm green, stupid and brain damaged.
IMHO reasonable behavior is limiting a number of requests accepted per
second without disabling service. But this code became a kind of saint
cow. Only hope is young monsters like xinetd will rid this dinosaur off
as a result of evolution.
--
/3APA3A
