Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:52:06 -0800 (PST) From: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> To: "David E. Cross" <dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@cdsnet.net>, Jim Bryant <jbryant@unix.tfs.net>, ircadmin@shellnet.co.uk, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Telnet Root access Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971205184841.12387B-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971205211836.7036A-100000@phoenix.its.rpi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, David E. Cross wrote: > > Actually it doesn't really even prevent that. Su just adds more detailed > > logging of the attempts, which are more likely (IMO) to draw attention. > many people will just capture the fist 100 or so characters sent to a > session... logging everything you enter on a connection is a waste of > space, and they need to dig through tht later. > > IMO: sending the root password plaintext over the network at any time is a > *NO*. I *only* use ssh to connect as root (even when su-ing), and only > from a host I trust, and a binary I trust. I have learned the hard way > not to compromise on neteork/system security. AFAIK, su just logs information like so: Dec 5 17:18:44 zippy su: alex to root on /dev/ttyp0 or Dec 5 18:49:43 zippy su: BAD SU alex to root on /dev/ttyp2 which is somewhat more informative than what login provides: Dec 5 16:12:50 zippy login: ROOT LOGIN (root) ON ttyv1 Either way, you and everyone else who suggested ssh are right, ssh is still the way to go if security is a concern. - alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971205184841.12387B-100000>