From owner-freebsd-security Tue Apr 17 13:13:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94E937B423; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:13:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f3HKD0322697; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:13:00 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Darren Reed , Julian Elischer , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: non-random IP IDs Message-ID: <20010417131300.L976@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010417043130.F976@fw.wintelcom.net> <200104171737.KAA56704@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104171737.KAA56704@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>; from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net on Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:37:56AM -0700 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Rodney W. Grimes [010417 10:37] wrote: > > * Darren Reed [010417 04:29] wrote: > > > In some mail from Julian Elischer, sie said: > > > > > > > > there is a site that calculates server uptime from these numbers. > > > > All the leading machines are freeBSD. When you do this it will > > > > no-longer be able to track us :-( > > > > > > IMHO, extraordinarily large uptimes are nothing to be proud of and > > > say nothing about the quality of software. > > > > > > I'd almost go so far as to say uptimes greater than 1 year indicate > > > that the system administration practises need review. > > > > Agreed. I've yet to hear about any seriously deployed system > > go without security advisories for over a year. > > Or perhaps this is a very talented system admin who values uptime > and finds work arounds that don't envolve downing a system that do > just as good, and sometimes better, than the vendor fix for the > security issue. > > Security Fix != Reboot required. Well I was the one that asked Jake if he could provide a system for patching static functions in the kernel. If you search the archives there is a patch for doing this. It's actually quite reasonable to patch code out from under a running system. One can replace the entry opcode of the function with a jump to the patched code. The only time this becomes a problem is when structures change, however backporting the fix shouldn't be a problem. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message