From owner-freebsd-security Wed Mar 26 10:48:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA08011 for security-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from enteract.com (root@enteract.com [206.54.252.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA08001 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:48:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tqbf@localhost) by enteract.com (8.8.5/8.7.6) id MAA28329; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:47:35 -0600 (CST) From: "Thomas H. Ptacek" Message-Id: <199703261847.MAA28329@enteract.com> Subject: Re: Privileged ports... To: adam@homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:47:33 -0600 (CST) Cc: dg@root.com, adrian@obiwan.aceonline.com.au, tqbf@enteract.com, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: tqbf@enteract.com In-Reply-To: <199703261631.LAA15307@homeport.org> from "Adam Shostack" at Mar 26, 97 11:31:57 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > for each low numbered port? It seems that (modulo configuration being > a little painful) this offers the best of both worlds--control over > low numbered ports, but anyone can bind to a port with root's Not only is inetd's configuration much longer, but if it dies (or, more specifically, if an attacker can kill it), your system becomes completely insecure. I think it's a bad idea to have security issues rely on the survival of userland processes. Am I wrong? ---------------- Thomas Ptacek at EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicago, IL [tqbf@enteract.com] ---------------- "If you're so special, why aren't you dead?"