Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:37:44 -0400 (EDT) From: David Gilbert <dgilbert@velocet.ca> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: dgilbert@velocet.ca (David Gilbert), Harry_M_Leitzell@cmu.edu, fred@fredbox.com, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: DHCP (was Re: poink attack (was Re: ARP problem in Windows9X/NT)) Message-ID: <14108.40776.605720.29036@trooper.velocet.ca> In-Reply-To: <199904201515.LAA09694@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> References: <14108.38235.254919.924353@trooper.velocet.ca> <199904201515.LAA09694@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Crist" == Crist J Clark <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> writes: Crist> OK, I'll bite. Crist> What happens when someone who is not supposed to connects to a Crist> DHCP served network? (Besides that they are connected to the Crist> network and are not supposed to be.) -- Crist J. Clark Crist> cjclark@home.com It just lowers the bar. To attach oneself usefully to a foreign IP network requires some experimentation and/or packet sniffing. On a DHCP network, it's just plug and pray. I suppose it's the difference between running Linux which every script kiddie plays with vs. running FreeBSD (little harder) or HpUX (reasonably obscure). I'm certainly not one to believe in security by obscurity --- not at least against a knowledgeable attacker. However, there is a coorelation between the number of breakins on hosts we (Velocet) monitor and that hosts representative population. DG/UX is likely holey as swiss cheeze, but rootshell doesn't have a 'sploit for it. Back to the origional issue: Joe _average_ salesman is sitting in the boardroom... which has a network jack. He's left alone for 30 minutes for one reason or another. He plugs in. Without _any_ knowledge, he's up and running. Of course, if Joe were a hacker worth his salt, this wouldn't be a barrier --- but the likelyhood of Joe being a hacker is small. I think there's a definate range of security issues --- and I think it's rediculus for most companies to take the standard 'stance' that they must protect themselves against all perils (why then have they not started filtering for whatever that substance is that kills hard drives in a week if it's in the air) on the net. Things range from 'something anyone can do from the other side of the world from a Win95 machine' to 'something a black-belt hacker could do with arbitrary equipment in my machine room' --- an obvious policy is to allocate time/money to security that has the cost/benifit ratio that you choose. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Velocet Communications. | Two things can only be | |Mail: dgilbert@velocet.net | equal if and only if they | |http://www.velocet.net/~dgilbert | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================ 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?14108.40776.605720.29036>