[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: More PATH fallout. Who decided this was a good idea?

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

Les Mikesell wrote:
Is attempting an access that the kernel routinely prevents considered a
violation?  That is, if I type 'file /etc/*' on such a system should I
expect the black helicopters to start firing?  I don't see how accesses
that are denied matter to anyone - or why anyone running the
shadow-tools utility without permission to access the relevant files
should bother anyone either.

Actually, yes. There are environments in which an administrator may set
up heuristics to determine whether a user is attempting to probe the
system for vulnerability. In the systems like this I've seen, one very
common action to note is failed attempts by users to execute processes
in /sbin or /usr/sbin. Seeing the same user attempt to execute every
binary in one of those folders could be a clear sign that they are
probing for misconfigurations to take advantage of.

But shouldn't the effort go toward making sure that there are no vulnerabilities to take advantage of at all? If they aren't setuid, one binary can't do anything that any other binary/interpreter can do. I could understand tracking anything setuid but why bother with anything else? You can access (or fail to access) all the same files/devices the same way with shell redirection.

  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]