From owner-freebsd-security Mon Dec 2 16:08:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA23071 for security-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:08:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.telecom.ksu.edu (smtp@gateway.telecom.ksu.edu [129.130.63.239]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA23062 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:08:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sioux.telecom.ksu.edu(129.130.60.32) by pawnee.telecom.ksu.edu via smap (V1.3) id sma025354; Mon Dec 2 18:07:50 1996 From: joed@telecom.ksu.edu (Joe Diehl) Message-Id: <199612030007.SAA22848@telecom.ksu.edu> Subject: Securing the freebsd boot process To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:07:49 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Greetings, This has probably been discussed a few times in the passed, but I wasn't around then, so... Is there anyway to increase the security of a FreeBSD machine at boot time? The two points of concern are booting into single user mode without a password, and hitting Ctrl-C repeatedly while /etc/rc is executing. Naturally, either of the two will drop the machine to a root shell. At present I have simply required a password at boot time in the bios setup; however, this prevents the machine from coming back up on it's own should I reboot the box remotely. Please CC: any replies to me as I'm not subscribed to freebsd-security at the present time. Thanks --- Joe Diehl KSU Dept. of Telecommunications From owner-freebsd-security Mon Dec 2 17:09:01 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA26172 for security-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:09:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA26163 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA18024; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:08:14 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:08:14 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Joe Diehl cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Securing the freebsd boot process In-Reply-To: <199612030007.SAA22848@telecom.ksu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Joe Diehl wrote: > Is there anyway to increase the security of a FreeBSD machine at boot > time? The two points of concern are booting into single user mode > without a password, This is solved partially by removing the 'secure' keyword from 'console' in /etc/ttys. That will force init to require the root password before starting a shell, if the system is booted in single-user mode. 'kill -HUP 1' after editing /etc/ttys. > and hitting Ctrl-C repeatedly while /etc/rc is > executing. Naturally, either of the two will drop the machine to a > root shell. Not sure about this. Perhaps someone else can explain the 'trap' section of sh(1) more clearly than sh.1 does (see the 'trap' statements at the start of /etc/rc) Danny From owner-freebsd-security Mon Dec 2 20:22:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA06402 for security-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:22:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from teamos2.org (client-3.io.org [198.133.36.47]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA06397 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:22:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (james@localhost) by teamos2.org (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id XAA10909; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:21:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:21:42 -0500 (EST) From: James FitzGibbon X-Sender: james@teamos2.org To: Joe Diehl cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Securing the freebsd boot process In-Reply-To: <199612030007.SAA22848@telecom.ksu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Joe Diehl wrote: > This has probably been discussed a few times in the passed, but I wasn't > around then, so... > > Is there anyway to increase the security of a FreeBSD machine at boot > time? The two points of concern are booting into single user mode > without a password, and hitting Ctrl-C repeatedly while /etc/rc is > executing. Naturally, either of the two will drop the machine to a > root shell. I'm not sure about the /etc/rc issue, but changing /etc/ttys so that 'console' is insecure instead of the default 'secure' will require that the root password be entered for single user mode. -- j. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | James FitzGibbon james@nexis.net | | Integrator, The Nexis Group Voice/Fax : 416 410-0100 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-freebsd-security Tue Dec 3 07:35:53 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA21386 for security-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 07:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from bacall.lodgenet.com (bacall.lodgenet.com [205.138.147.242]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA21377 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 07:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by bacall.lodgenet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10580; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:35:12 -0600 Received: from garbo.lodgenet.com(204.124.123.250) by bacall via smap (V1.3) id sma010575; Tue Dec 3 09:35:07 1996 Received: from jake.lodgenet.com (jake.lodgenet.com [10.0.11.30]) by garbo.lodgenet.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA01126; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:35:13 -0600 Received: from jake.lodgenet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jake.lodgenet.com (8.8.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA26706; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:35:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612031535.JAA26706@jake.lodgenet.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 To: "Daniel O'Callaghan" cc: Joe Diehl , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Securing the freebsd boot process In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Dec 1996 12:08:14 +1100." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 09:35:20 -0600 From: "Eric L. Hernes" Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk "Daniel O'Callaghan" writes: > > >On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Joe Diehl wrote: > >> Is there anyway to increase the security of a FreeBSD machine at boot >> time? The two points of concern are booting into single user mode >> without a password, > >This is solved partially by removing the 'secure' keyword from 'console' >in /etc/ttys. That will force init to require the root password before >starting a shell, if the system is booted in single-user mode. >'kill -HUP 1' after editing /etc/ttys. > >> and hitting Ctrl-C repeatedly while /etc/rc is >> executing. Naturally, either of the two will drop the machine to a >> root shell. > >Not sure about this. Perhaps someone else can explain the 'trap' section >of sh(1) more clearly than sh.1 does (see the 'trap' statements at the >start of /etc/rc) > I haven't tried, but you probably could put something like "stty intr '^-'" as one of the first lines in /etc/rc, to disable ^c. Or better yet, you could do the equivalent setctty() in init.c >Danny > > eric. -- erich@lodgenet.com http://rrnet.com/~erich erich@rrnet.com From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 09:53:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA10931 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:53:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from infowest.com (infowest.com [204.17.177.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA10926 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:53:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sparrowhawk (DrWho.infowest.com [204.17.177.101]) by infowest.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA17725 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:54:35 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961120105316.0074d25c@infowest.com> X-Sender: agifford@infowest.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:53:18 -0700 To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org From: "Aaron D. Gifford" Subject: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Looking at www.sendmail.org I see that sendmail 8.8.4 has been released. >From that page I read, "Sendmail 8.8.4 fixes the security problem described in CERT Advisory CA-96.24." Now wasn't that fixed in 8.8.3? If so, is 8.8.4 just a minor bug release with no real security fixes over 8.8.3? Does anyone even know? And last question, has 8.8.4 made it into any of the FreeBSD trees yet? Aaron out. -- Aaron D. Gifford agifford@infowest.com http://www.infowest.com/a/agifford/ From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 10:21:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA14266 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:21:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA14261 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA10958; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:21:23 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:21:23 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612041821.LAA10958@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: "Aaron D. Gifford" Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961120105316.0074d25c@infowest.com> References: <3.0.32.19961120105316.0074d25c@infowest.com> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Looking at www.sendmail.org I see that sendmail 8.8.4 has been > released. Peter incorporated it into -current the day it was released, and Poul merged almost all of it into 2.2 about 4 hours later. (He missed a non-important change in makemap). > >From that page I read, "Sendmail 8.8.4 fixes the security problem described > in CERT Advisory CA-96.24." Now wasn't that fixed in 8.8.3? If so, is > 8.8.4 just a minor bug release with no real security fixes over 8.8.3? > Does anyone even know? It fixes a security bug with .forward and alias::include file handling. Nate From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 11:44:44 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA17992 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA17987 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (alecto.physics.uiuc.edu [128.174.83.167]) by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA77430; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:44:37 -0600 Received: by alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id NAA17903; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:43:47 -0600 From: igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (Igor Roshchin) Message-Id: <199612041943.NAA17903@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:43:45 -0600 (CST) Cc: agifford@infowest.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199612041821.LAA10958@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Dec 4, 96 11:21:23 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Looking at www.sendmail.org I see that sendmail 8.8.4 has been > > released. > > Peter incorporated it into -current the day it was released, and Poul > merged almost all of it into 2.2 about 4 hours later. (He missed a > non-important change in makemap). > > Hey, what about 2.1.x ??? Is not 2.1.6. (which is claimed to be almost -stable) supposed to have "stable" sendmail ? Can anybody tell, if there was any real change in the port of 8.8.4 as compared to the original distribution of 8.8.4 ? Can I consider changing "Makefile"-s in all directories to what was in 8.8.3 ported to FreeBSD, changing pathes in smrsh.c and adding to free*.cf files to cf/cf to be enough ? Did I forget anything ? Thanks. IgoR aka StR From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 11:51:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA18290 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA18282 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA11333; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:51:36 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:51:36 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (Igor Roshchin) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: <199612041943.NAA17903@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> References: <199612041821.LAA10958@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612041943.NAA17903@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Looking at www.sendmail.org I see that sendmail 8.8.4 has been > > > released. > > > > Peter incorporated it into -current the day it was released, and Poul > > merged almost all of it into 2.2 about 4 hours later. (He missed a > > non-important change in makemap). > > > > > > Hey, what about 2.1.x ??? 2.1.X is now dead unless Jordan and David (or Paul) decide to roll 'yet another' point release. > Is not 2.1.6. (which is claimed to be almost -stable) supposed > to have "stable" sendmail ? Yes, but since the 2.1.6 are already on CD-ROM it's really hard to change the bits w/out using an electron microscope. *grin* "Stable" doesn't imply bug-free or completely-secure. *All* software has bugs, but at some point the FreeBSD folks had to say 'this is the end of the 2.1.X series), and 2.1.6.1 is it. > Can anybody tell, if there was any real change in the port of 8.8.4 > as compared to the original distribution of 8.8.4 ? I downloaded the 8.8.4 patch onto my 2.1.6.1 box and applied it. It complained about a couple of missing Makefiles (For Linux, SCO, etc..), but otherwise it applied fine. The other choice is to grab the 8.8.4 sendmail from -current and simply plop it on top of your sendmail sources in -stable. It should work in either case. Nate From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 11:59:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA18602 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA18595 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (alecto.physics.uiuc.edu [128.174.83.167]) by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA53680; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:59:13 -0600 Received: by alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id NAA21344; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:58:28 -0600 From: igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (Igor Roshchin) Message-Id: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:58:26 -0600 (CST) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Dec 4, 96 12:51:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 2.1.X is now dead unless Jordan and David (or Paul) decide to roll 'yet > another' point release. > > > Is not 2.1.6. (which is claimed to be almost -stable) supposed > > to have "stable" sendmail ? > > Yes, but since the 2.1.6 are already on CD-ROM it's really hard to > change the bits w/out using an electron microscope. *grin* > > "Stable" doesn't imply bug-free or completely-secure. *All* software > has bugs, but at some point the FreeBSD folks had to say 'this is the > end of the 2.1.X series), and 2.1.6.1 is it. > May be I am missing something, but I thought 2.1.6. was supposed to get to the -stable release, and just than die. (At least, that's how I understand Jordan's explanations on 2.1.6. release) It doesn't seem to be there yet. 2.2... doesn't have -stable version yet (does it ?) either.... THere should exist at least something which can be used without too many changes for some period of time ;-> THanks for the explanations about patches, etc. IgoR aka StR From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 12:58:36 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id MAA12768 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA12760 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:58:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA11575; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:58:23 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:58:23 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (Igor Roshchin) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> References: <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 2.1.X is now dead unless Jordan and David (or Paul) decide to roll 'yet > > another' point release. > > > > > Is not 2.1.6. (which is claimed to be almost -stable) supposed > > > to have "stable" sendmail ? > > > > Yes, but since the 2.1.6 are already on CD-ROM it's really hard to > > change the bits w/out using an electron microscope. *grin* > > > > "Stable" doesn't imply bug-free or completely-secure. *All* software > > has bugs, but at some point the FreeBSD folks had to say 'this is the > > end of the 2.1.X series), and 2.1.6.1 is it. > > > > May be I am missing something, but I thought > 2.1.6. was supposed to get to the -stable release, and just than die. Nope, you have it backwards. '-stable' was the ongoing release that eventually became 2.1.5, 2.1.6, and 2.1.6.1. -stable was the name that was used as it changes, and the 'point releases' were the actual shippped (CD distributions) of the -stable branch. > THere should exist at least something which can be used > without too many changes for some period of time ;-> That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the sendmail bug. Nate From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 14:36:55 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id OAA19958 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:36:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.skipstone.com (root@GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA19953 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:36:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from bugs.skipstone.com (bugs.skipstone.com [204.69.236.2]) by gateway.skipstone.com (8.7.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA03561; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:35:45 -0600 Received: from [204.69.236.50] (hotapplepie.skipstone.com [204.69.236.50]) by bugs.skipstone.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA16406; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:36:37 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> References: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:36:34 -0600 To: Nate Williams From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that >weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the >sendmail bug. And a very few changes have been committed since then. The ctm-src-2_1 list still gets changes once or twice a week. I will be happy to continue to distribute any additional changes that get committed. (Like a new sendmail ?) IMHO, such security problem patches SHOULD get committed to the 2.1 tree UNTIL 2.2 has proven itself. Since 2.2 is just now in "beta", I would guess that might be around March, 1997. If the existing commiters REFUSE to do so, perhaps we need some other/additional committers who ARE WILLING. (I know it ain't fun, but it really does go a long way toward giving us a reputation for the highest quality) From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 15:34:19 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id PAA22085 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:34:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA22076 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA12288; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:34:02 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:34:02 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612042334.QAA12288@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: Nate Williams , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: References: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Richard Wackerbarth writes: > >That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that > >weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the > >sendmail bug. > > And a very few changes have been committed since then. I don't think so. Changes have been committed since 2.1.6, but not since it was frozen. > IMHO, such security problem patches SHOULD get committed to the 2.1 tree > UNTIL 2.2 has proven itself. Since 2.2 is just now in "beta", I would guess > that might be around March, 1997. Huh? 2.2 is going to be released *long* before that time. In order for it to 'become' proven, it has to be used. If people aren't willing to test it then it'll never be 'stable'. I've stated in the past that if people are willing to submit patches for the 2.1-stable branch I'd commit them, and I got *ZERO* response. I'm not longer willing to do it simply because I don't have time for it and obviously no-one who cares is willing to do anything about it, but instead expect the developers to do it for them. 2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others. It lived long past it's usefulness in the developers mind. Nate From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 15:48:22 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id PAA22827 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:48:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.skipstone.com (root@GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA22820 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:48:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from bugs.skipstone.com (bugs.skipstone.com [204.69.236.2]) by gateway.skipstone.com (8.7.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA23512; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:47:22 -0600 Received: from [204.69.236.50] (hotapplepie.skipstone.com [204.69.236.50]) by bugs.skipstone.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA16846; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:48:14 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612042334.QAA12288@rocky.mt.sri.com> References: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:48:12 -0600 To: Nate Williams From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Richard Wackerbarth writes: >> >That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that >> >weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the >> >sendmail bug. >> >> And a very few changes have been committed since then. > >I don't think so. Changes have been committed since 2.1.6, but not >since it was frozen. WRONG! Look at the ctm updates in the archive. They are triggered by SOME change in the CVS tree for the 2_1_0 tag. >> IMHO, such security problem patches SHOULD get committed to the 2.1 tree >> UNTIL 2.2 has proven itself. Since 2.2 is just now in "beta", I would guess >> that might be around March, 1997. > >Huh? 2.2 is going to be released *long* before that time. In order for >it to 'become' proven, it has to be used. If people aren't willing to >test it then it'll never be 'stable'. I agree. However, until it IS proven, we still need a reliable system for "mission critical" assignments. Those need to get "security" fixes. >2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others. It lived long past >it's usefulness in the developers mind. That is a "developer's" attitude. If we wish to really have FreeBSD used in commercial environments, we need to adopt more of a "user's" attitude. I'm not advocating ANY changes other than SECURITY fixes at this point. I would hope that the same sendmail that works in 2.2 also works in 2.1.6+. If we need to test that before committing, I'll do so. From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 15:53:12 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id PAA22980 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA22975 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA12451; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:53:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:53:01 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612042353.QAA12451@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: Nate Williams , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: References: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612042334.QAA12288@rocky.mt.sri.com> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >> >That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that > >> >weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the > >> >sendmail bug. > >> > >> And a very few changes have been committed since then. > > > >I don't think so. Changes have been committed since 2.1.6, but not > >since it was frozen. > > WRONG! Look at the ctm updates in the archive. They are triggered by SOME > change in the CVS tree for the 2_1_0 tag. I didnt' see any that came after. I think you're confused. > >2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others. It lived long past > >it's usefulness in the developers mind. > > That is a "developer's" attitude. If we wish to really have FreeBSD used in > commercial environments, we need to adopt more of a "user's" attitude. I did. I offered to integrate the "users's" patches, and none were submitted. The users have yet to show they care. Nate From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 16:54:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id QAA26300 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunrise.gv.ssi1.com (sunrise.gv.ssi1.com [146.252.44.191]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26294 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from salsa.gv.ssi1.com (salsa.gv.ssi1.com [146.252.44.194]) by sunrise.gv.ssi1.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA14693; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gdonl@localhost) by salsa.gv.ssi1.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA02606; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:03 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis Message-Id: <199612050054.QAA02606@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:03 -0800 In-Reply-To: Nate Williams "Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions..." (Dec 4, 4:53pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95) To: Nate Williams , Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Dec 4, 4:53pm, Nate Williams wrote: } Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... } > >I don't think so. Changes have been committed since 2.1.6, but not } > >since it was frozen. } > } > WRONG! Look at the ctm updates in the archive. They are triggered by SOME } > change in the CVS tree for the 2_1_0 tag. } } I didnt' see any that came after. I think you're confused. I just got a ctm update for -stable in the mail today. It looks like the first one since 2.1.6.1, which is only about a week and a half old. } > >2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others. It lived long past } > >it's usefulness in the developers mind. I'll agree that it's dead as far as new development, but I'll have it running here for quite a while yet. I'd like to see security patches released as needed. } > That is a "developer's" attitude. If we wish to really have FreeBSD used in } > commercial environments, we need to adopt more of a "user's" attitude. } } I did. I offered to integrate the "users's" patches, and none were } submitted. The users have yet to show they care. I submitted a few patches just before 2.1.6-RELEASE which were committed by Jordan and others. I also complained about a few broken things that others took the initiative to fix. PR bin/2067 is still open. It contains a patch that applies to all versions of FreeBSD. --- Truck From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 17:07:30 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id RAA27445 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA27440 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA12859; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:06:37 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:06:37 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612050106.SAA12859@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Don Lewis Cc: Nate Williams , Richard Wackerbarth , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: <199612050054.QAA02606@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> References: <199612050054.QAA02606@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > } > >I don't think so. Changes have been committed since 2.1.6, but not > } > >since it was frozen. > } > > } > WRONG! Look at the ctm updates in the archive. They are triggered by SOME > } > change in the CVS tree for the 2_1_0 tag. > } > } I didnt' see any that came after. I think you're confused. > > I just got a ctm update for -stable in the mail today. It looks like the > first one since 2.1.6.1, which is only about a week and a half old. I forgot that Satoshi made a change to bsd.port.mk last night. Whee... > } > >2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others. It lived long past > } > >it's usefulness in the developers mind. > > I'll agree that it's dead as far as new development, but I'll have it > running here for quite a while yet. I'd like to see security patches > released as needed. How would they be distributed? Nate From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 17:17:34 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id RAA27899 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunrise.gv.ssi1.com (sunrise.gv.ssi1.com [146.252.44.191]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA27877 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:17:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from salsa.gv.ssi1.com (salsa.gv.ssi1.com [146.252.44.194]) by sunrise.gv.ssi1.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA14957; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:17:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gdonl@localhost) by salsa.gv.ssi1.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA02670; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:17:18 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis Message-Id: <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:17:18 -0800 In-Reply-To: Nate Williams "Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions..." (Dec 4, 6:06pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95) To: Nate Williams , Don Lewis Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Cc: Richard Wackerbarth , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Dec 4, 6:06pm, Nate Williams wrote: } Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... } > } > I just got a ctm update for -stable in the mail today. It looks like the } > first one since 2.1.6.1, which is only about a week and a half old. } } I forgot that Satoshi made a change to bsd.port.mk last night. Whee... Can't say I thought this one was critical ... } > I'll agree that it's dead as far as new development, but I'll have it } > running here for quite a while yet. I'd like to see security patches } > released as needed. } } How would they be distributed? ctm updates work fine for me. --- Truck From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 17:22:41 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id RAA28225 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA28219 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA12964; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:21:50 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:21:50 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612050121.SAA12964@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Don Lewis Cc: Nate Williams , Richard Wackerbarth , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> References: <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > } > I'll agree that it's dead as far as new development, but I'll have it > } > running here for quite a while yet. I'd like to see security patches > } > released as needed. > } > } How would they be distributed? > > ctm updates work fine for me. I'd rather the 'users' find a new way (that doesn't involved the developers) of distributing patches. You don't need us to do it since you are capable of supporting yourselves. Nate ps. I don't think PR 2067 is the correct fix. The code should work as written. From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 17:55:07 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id RAA00167 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (eel.dataplex.net [208.2.87.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA00162 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:55:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod [208.2.87.4]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA17171; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:55:01 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612050106.SAA12859@rocky.mt.sri.com> References: <199612050054.QAA02606@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> <199612050054.QAA02606@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:44:49 -0600 To: Nate Williams From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com wrote: >> I'll agree that it's dead as far as new development, but I'll have it >> running here for quite a while yet. I'd like to see security patches >> released as needed. >How would they be distributed? CTM works quite well. And it is an automated distribution. CVSup also works and will continue to do so until someone removes some critical part of the CVS tree. From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 18:57:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id SAA03430 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:57:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (eel.dataplex.net [208.2.87.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA03425 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod [208.2.87.4]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA19886; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:56:57 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612050221.TAA13306@rocky.mt.sri.com> References: <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> <199612050121.SAA12964@rocky.mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:56:40 -0600 To: Nate Williams From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Nate Williams replies: >> >I'd rather the 'users' find a new way (that doesn't involved the >> >developers) of distributing patches. You don't need us to do it since >> >you are capable of supporting yourselves. >> >> Well, that implies that "we" take over the commit tree for the 2.1 system. >> Do you really want changes that are not committed into the official CVS >>tree? > >I don't care what "WE-you" do with the tree since "WE-us" aren't going >to be providing any 'offical' patches AFAIK. > >> Do "we" have permission to use the "FreeBSD 2.1" name? > >You aren't providing a release, you are providing patches to a FreeBSD >release. *Anyone* is allowed to do that, you don't need any blessing or >permission to do that. And that defeats the whole purpose of the effort. Only the "FreeBSD organization" can OFFICIALLY address solutions to security problems. If someone else distributes patches, then, rather than increasing the opinion of users, it will actually reflect negatively on the organization because it shows that the organization "doesn't care". It really is too bad that "you" developers have such a limited viewpoint. All you want to your plaything. It doesn't matter to you whether or not it is useful in the "real world". That attitude is definitely a limiting factor. From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 19:04:25 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id TAA03700 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA03695 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA13560; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:04:17 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:04:17 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612050304.UAA13560@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: Nate Williams , jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-Reply-To: References: <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> <199612050121.SAA12964@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612050221.TAA13306@rocky.mt.sri.com> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > It really is too bad that "you" developers have such a limited viewpoint. > All you want to your plaything. It doesn't matter to you whether or not it > is useful in the "real world". That attitude is definitely a limiting > factor. Let me put it to you in a way that is *very* easy to understand. "Grow up, or get a life." I don't have to prove myself to the users or have to justify my actions to anyone. You have *yet* to show anything for your efforts other than complaining, whining, and bitching about how the current sysytem sucks yet you have not *once* provided a solution. Shut up and get outta my way, since all you are doing is *hindering* the process of making things better. You *ARE* part of the problem, and not the solution. Nate ps. Apologies to those folks who think I'm being a bit harsh. I've just had it with Richard's 'pie-in-the-sky' solutions that never materialize that awlays seem to involve more of my time and none of his. From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 20:03:54 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id UAA11599 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:03:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (eel.dataplex.net [208.2.87.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA11593 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod [208.2.87.4]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA23329; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:03:31 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612050304.UAA13560@rocky.mt.sri.com> References: <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com> <199612050121.SAA12964@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612050221.TAA13306@rocky.mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:03:19 -0600 To: Nate Williams From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Shut up and get outta my way, since all you are doing is *hindering* the >process of making things better. > >You *ARE* part of the problem, and not the solution. Yes, I am a problem because I am not satisfied with the posturing that you make in your own little sandbox. If you want your system to be taken seriously, you need to recognize that there is more to a system that just the code. I happen to think that a major problem in acceptance is (perceived) (lack of) "customer support". Jordan has made great progress in making installation more "user friendly". We also need to make sure that we address other needs of the "users". Particularly if the intention is to target the commercial user rather than the home hobbyist, you must remember that they need STABLE, SUPPORTED systems. What you call a "release" has, by industry standards, had virtually no testing. It needs to be field tested for some time before being placed into critical service. In the interim, the users STILL need a SUPPORTED system. >ps. Apologies to those folks who think I'm being a bit harsh. I've just >had it with Richard's 'pie-in-the-sky' solutions that never materialize >that awlays seem to involve more of my time and none of his. On the contrary, I proposed that this effort involve participants other than the "developers". However, it is your wish to restrict the "FreeBSD organization" to your closed group which places the burden on yourselves. You (conveniently) forget that just a few messages back, I offered to do the additional testing to assure that the changes going into 2.2 were also appropriate for 2.1. I am both willing and able to support the source tree for 2.1 separate from the main cvs tree. However, I do not think that is really a good idea. If FreeBSD is to gain from any effort to support the reliable aging system, it MUST be done under the banner of the organization. If that is done, I feel it only prudent that the master copy of things be kept by the organization in a unified manner. And you have now convinced me that, WRT the build system, your offer to consider a "proof of concept" rather than the full thing was insincere and any effort that I have made toward developing that demonstration has been wasted effort. :-( From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 21:11:17 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id VAA14422 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:11:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA14417 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:11:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA05707; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:11:04 -0800 (PST) To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Nate Williams , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Dec 1996 20:56:40 CST." Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 21:11:04 -0800 Message-ID: <5702.849762664@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > And that defeats the whole purpose of the effort. Only the "FreeBSD > organization" can OFFICIALLY address solutions to security problems. > If someone else distributes patches, then, rather than increasing the > opinion of users, it will actually reflect negatively on the organization > because it shows that the organization "doesn't care". OK, good point - you talked me out of it. Let's just let the branch die as planned. :-) > It really is too bad that "you" developers have such a limited viewpoint. > All you want to your plaything. It doesn't matter to you whether or not it > is useful in the "real world". That attitude is definitely a limiting > factor. Gimme a break, Richard - you have to end every line of software development sometime, and if we decided that the "end" was when the very last user decided they didn't want it anymore, we'd still be supporting this in 10 years time. Let's put it this way, and this may require that you stretch your brain a bit to grasp some of the advanced concepts I'm about to put forth: 1. We have a very limited number of developers and developer time. 2. These developers are primarily volunteers and will work on what they damn well want to work on. If you want to change this, start donating part of your salary to the FreeBSD, Inc. fund and I will gladly channel it into paying people to do the non-fun stuff I cannot motivate them to do otherwise. 3. We need to continue to make progress and move forward or we will lose both momentum and volunteer developers. Given all of that, I cannot manage this in the way you'd like to see it managed - that model just won't work here, and if I've learned anything over the last 4 years it's what works and what doesn't with this crew. I'll thank you to trust my judgement on this and not make unreasonable demands may sounds like positive suggestions from your perspective but come at too high a price and would, in fact, damage the project if I were foolish enough to heed them. You are also not privy to the emails in core, where fully 80% of the core members are NOT IN FAVOR of -stable and have strongly resisted my efforts to carry it as long as I have. Jordan From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 4 22:08:25 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id WAA16671 for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:08:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tfs.com (tfs.com [140.145.250.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA16666 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:08:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.tfs.com by tfs.com (smail3.1.28.1) with SMTP id m0vVWxc-0003wLC; Wed, 4 Dec 96 22:07 PST Received: from critter.tfs.com (localhost.phk.dk [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id HAA05255; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:08:34 +0100 (MET) To: Nate Williams cc: Richard Wackerbarth , jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Dec 1996 20:04:17 MST." <199612050304.UAA13560@rocky.mt.sri.com> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 07:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: <5253.849766114@critter.tfs.com> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >You *ARE* part of the problem, and not the solution. > >Nate > >ps. Apologies to those folks who think I'm being a bit harsh. I've just >had it with Richard's 'pie-in-the-sky' solutions that never materialize >that awlays seem to involve more of my time and none of his. I agree. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail. From owner-freebsd-security Thu Dec 5 09:15:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA19116 for security-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from xmission.xmission.com (softweyr@xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA19104 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from softweyr@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.3/8.7.5) id KAA25294; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:14:30 -0700 (MST) From: Softweyr LLC Message-Id: <199612051714.KAA25294@xmission.xmission.com> Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:14:30 -0700 (MST) Cc: security@freebsd.org Reply-To: chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Dec 4, 96 08:56:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Nate Williams observed: % You aren't providing a release, you are providing patches to a FreeBSD % release. *Anyone* is allowed to do that, you don't need any blessing or % permission to do that. Richard Wackerbarth replied: > And that defeats the whole purpose of the effort. Only the "FreeBSD > organization" can OFFICIALLY address solutions to security problems. > If someone else distributes patches, then, rather than increasing the > opinion of users, it will actually reflect negatively on the organization > because it shows that the organization "doesn't care". > > It really is too bad that "you" developers have such a limited viewpoint. > All you want to your plaything. It doesn't matter to you whether or not it > is useful in the "real world". That attitude is definitely a limiting > factor. This is certainly not true of all FreeBSD developers, and not of Nate either. Nate has his interests, and they don't coincide with yours. Since you're *not paying him*, he doesn't have any compelling reason to drop what he is doing and rush to your aid. If this bothers you, that is your problem, not Nates! If you, Richard, want to become the champion of security patches for FreeBSD 2.1.6.1+, talk to Jordan and devise a mechanism for distri- buting security patches as part of "the organization." In other words, if it is really important to you, become part of the solution, rather than remaining part of the problem. Nobody has ever said FreeBSD is a closed organization, and offers to volunteer are rarely turned down. Most of the call for continuing security fixes for the -STABLE branch have come from ISPs using FreeBSD to make money, but I have heard exactly *none* of them volunteer any resources - manpower, cpu cycles, disk space, network bandwidth, *nothing* in order to make this happen. Put up or shut up! Replies directed to chat, this has long since ceased being a security issue. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com From owner-freebsd-security Thu Dec 5 10:15:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA21690 for security-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:15:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA21674 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:15:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA16900; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:15:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:15:43 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612051815.LAA16900@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: forwarded message from Steve Lalonde Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk ------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) ------- From: "Steve Lalonde" Sender: owner-bsdi-users@lists.gateway.com To: Subject: innd 1.5 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:38:46 -0000 just seen this in bugtraq thought you guys/girls might like to know. In article , James Brister wrote: > >I'm pleased to announce the first full release of an ISC sponsored version >of INN (version 1.5). INN 1.5 contains a serious remotely exploitable security hole. I would not recommend using this version as released. The security hole allows outsiders to execute arbitrary commands on your news server, by embedding the commands in the headers of control messages. This security hole still exists even if your control.ctl file disallows all automatic group creation, or if your control.ctl file is set up to run the pgpverify program on control messages. Also, it doesn't matter whether outsiders have TCP connectivity to your news server, only that their news articles can reach your server somehow. Outsiders' access will have the uid of innd (often username "news"). This is the same issue I posted about in news.software.nntp on 7 July 1995 <3tjsk4$fu8@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>. This security hole also exists in previous versions of INN, including INN 1.4 and (to the best of my knowledge) "inn1.4unoff4", although I have not installed or used any of the "inn1.4unoff" packages myself. I think the attached patch will fix this problem for INN 1.5. I also suspect that the changes it makes will have essentially the same effect on versions of INN based on 1.4. For the INN 1.4 release, it also should fix an unrelated problem associated with text mailed by the rmgroup script possibly having a line-initial ~ generated by echo "${FROM} requested that ${P1} be removed." (This is a different ~ problem than the one in "1.4sec" or "1.4sec2".) This ~ issue is the only reason I know of that the patch below is preferable to the patch I posted in 1995. However, the patch below is possibly more consistent with the INN 1.5 code, in terms of how strings are checked and how restrictive the character set is for strings manipulated by a script that uses the sh "eval" command. Matt *** parsecontrol.old Fri Nov 29 18:32:18 1996 - --- parsecontrol Tue Dec 3 01:50:43 1996 *************** *** 15,21 **** az=abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ZN=0123456789 # Attempt to sanitize the address ! FROM="`echo \"$1\" | tr ${AZ} ${az} | tr -dc ${az}${ZN}+-_.@%`" REPLYTO="$2" case "$3" in "") - --- 15,21 ---- az=abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ZN=0123456789 # Attempt to sanitize the address ! FROM="`echo \"$1\" | tr ${AZ} ${az} | tr -dc \\\055${az}${ZN}+_.@%`" REPLYTO="$2" case "$3" in "") *************** *** 55,60 **** - --- 55,76 ---- writelog $MOST_LOGS/badcontrol.log "`date` Bad header by ${FROM}" exit fi + fi + + # Check characters in values of variables that will be inside an eval + TRANS1="`echo \"$1\" | tr ${AZ} ${az} | tr -dc \\\055${az}${ZN}+_.`" + if [ ${1}X != ${TRANS1}X ]; then + rm -f ${TEMP} + ${SED} -e 's/^~/~~/' < ${ARTICLE} \ + | ${MAILCMD} -s "Malformed newsgroup name by ${FROM}" ${NEWSMASTER} + exit + fi + TRANSP="`echo \"$PROG\" | tr ${AZ} ${az} | tr -dc \\\055${az}${ZN}+_.`" + if [ ${PROG}X != ${TRANSP}X ]; then + rm -f ${TEMP} + ${SED} -e 's/^~/~~/' < ${ARTICLE} \ + | ${MAILCMD} -s "Unexpected program name by ${FROM}" ${NEWSMASTER} + exit fi ACTION=mail Steve Lalonde Systems Manager ENTANET International Ltd The answer is YES whats the question? ------- end ------- From owner-freebsd-security Thu Dec 5 15:31:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA12312 for security-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:31:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from eternal.dusk.net (root@eternal.dusk.net [207.219.16.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id PAA12307 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vlad@localhost) by eternal.dusk.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA01996 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:30:55 -0400 (AST) From: There is no satisfaction without Action Message-Id: <199612052330.TAA01996@eternal.dusk.net> Subject: X-win. question To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:30:55 -0400 (AST) X-URL: http://www.dusk.net & http://www.vampires.net X-Moto: Life for today and let the future take care of itself X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Good Day, I have just installed X on one my machines and am starting with xdm as root, but then log in as a regular user. Are there any great security compromises to running X as I am, or running X on a machine that is connected to the net period? Help would be greatly appreciated, as shell accounts are available on the machine that I run X on, thus surely making myself prone to someone trying something funny :-/ Thank You in Advance, Christian -- Christian Hochhold | Dusk.net Internet Services vlad@dusk.net | vlad@vampires.net www.dusk.net | www.vampires.net ================================================ Dusk.net Internet - "By the user, for the user" From owner-freebsd-security Fri Dec 6 10:02:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA02819 for security-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:02:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA02801 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:02:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from tahoma.cwu.edu (skynyrd@tahoma.cwu.edu [198.104.65.220]) by who.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.11) with SMTP id JAA05062 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by tahoma.cwu.edu; id AA29921; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:29:03 -0800 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:29:03 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Timmons To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: New INN security problems Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Nate posted the patch and now I notice that it is available at: http://www.isc.org/isc/inn.html including a version for (really really old release) 1.4sec. -Chris From owner-freebsd-security Sat Dec 7 14:09:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA12414 for security-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:09:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from w2xo.pgh.pa.us (w2xo.pgh.pa.us [206.210.70.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA12409 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from durham@localhost) by w2xo.pgh.pa.us (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA00378 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:02:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 0.5-alpha [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 16:53:39 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Durham To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Strange behavior on 2.1.6 Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'm a newbie to this list. I seem to have found a problem in 2.1.6 that allows someone logged in as a user to su to root without password or much effort. This may possibly be due to some configuration stuff here, but I thought I would report it. I assume I don't just give the details here? -Jim Durham From owner-freebsd-security Sat Dec 7 22:51:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id WAA29394 for security-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from w2xo.pgh.pa.us (w2xo.pgh.pa.us [206.210.70.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA29389 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:51:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from durham@localhost) by w2xo.pgh.pa.us (8.7.6/8.7.3) id BAA02075 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:45:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 0.5-alpha [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 01:31:49 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Durham To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: re: advisories about root password Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Sorry...not the problem. -Jim Durham