Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:56:02 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: "Todd C. Miller" <Todd.Miller@courtesan.com>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG>, security@FreeBSD.ORG, audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fwd: Multiple vendor 'Taylor UUCP' problems. Message-ID: <20010908185602.B5619@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20010909054457.A34319@nagual.pp.ru>; from ache@nagual.pp.ru on Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 05:44:58AM %2B0400 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010908153417.0286b4b8@192.168.0.12> <200109082103.f88L3fK29117@earth.backplane.com> <20010908154617.A73143@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010908170257.A82082@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010908174304.A88816@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010909045226.A33654@nagual.pp.ru> <20010908180848.A94567@xor.obsecurity.org> <200109090120.f891KvM14677@xerxes.courtesan.com> <20010909054457.A34319@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 05:44:58AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 19:20:56 -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote: > > In message <20010908180848.A94567@xor.obsecurity.org> > > so spake Kris Kennaway (kris): > >=20 > > > The vulnerability involves uucp being made to run arbitrary commands > > > as the uucp user through specifying a custom configuration file - see > > > bugtraq. There may be other problems resulting from user-specified > > > configuration files. I don't have time to go through the code and fix > > > up the revocation of privileges right now..in the meantime, this > > > prevents the root exploit where a user replaces a uucp-owned binary > > > like uustat, which is called daily by /etc/periodic. > >=20 > > Is there really any reason to run uustat as root? Why not just run > > it as user uucp via su? For that matter, running non-root owned > > executables from daily seems like a really bad idea. >=20 > I agree. There is no needs to deal with privileges revocation at all if > "uucp" user itself is well restricted, just protect system "uucp" owned > binaries from owerwritting by "uucp" user using schg flag. That doesn't protect NFS-mounted systems, and doesn't prevent arbitrary users from reading/modifying the UUCP spool files. Kris --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7mswxWry0BWjoQKURAp32AJ490Un7HFu9RX4ZM1BRl2xMrhLbawCeMRVD 1l4ASx2eVxt1qTlI066TCQU= =Waf9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010908185602.B5619>