Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 14 May 2001 15:46:25 -0400
From:      "Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca>
To:        freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: nfs mounts / su / yp
Message-ID:  <3B003611.E96E8AE1@lmc.ericsson.se>
References:  <20010514200927.A32697@student.uu.se> <Pine.WNT.4.10.10105141416260.-559341@rosencrantz.east.isi.edu> <20010514204259.A33451@student.uu.se> <3B00295D.24643CD7@centtech.com> <3B002E2B.1337F4C9@lmc.ericsson.se> <20010514122650.T18676@fw.wintelcom.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 
> * Antoine Beaupre (LMC) <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca> [010514 12:20] wrote:
> > [cc's trimmed]
> >
> > You can't. Once the user has root, he can reinstall a complete system,
> > bypassing any *local* policy you might have. You can't keep root from
> > doing *anything* by definition. I think there has been a few threads
> > regarding this on this list. This might be seen as a UNIX design flaw
> > but I certainly disagree. Anyways, that is not the issue here.
> 
> FreeBSD has securelevels, while not ideal, if implemented properly
> they can limit what root can do.

Definitly. One might also mention the infmaous Jail. :)

But then again, I think our folks here mentionned something like:

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Eric Anderson wrote:
> I have users that WILL get root on their desktop machines, one way or > the other. 

At that point, securelevel or not, jail or not, if the user has physical
access to the machine, he is the Root God.

Make the console insecure, he'll boot with a floppy. Make the floppy
unbootable with a BIOS password, he'll jump the board. Remove the floppy
and any removable altogether, and he'll slam his own floppy drive in.
Put a lock on the case, he'll break it. There's no escape. A client
machine is by definition untrustable, if you don't trust the operator.

I think a sysadmin giving a workstation, with full access to a "shared"
network (ie. with NFS and YP packets flying around), to a user, must
trust the user. Or at least restrict access to the network, or change
its infrastructure.

I know I might get flamed for this, but you guys should take a look at
samba. :) The SMB shares are password protected, usually, which means
that they do not (necessarly) rely on client-side authentication, and
allow password encryption.

I might be wrong though. :)

A.
--
La sémantique est la gravité de l'abstraction.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B003611.E96E8AE1>