Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:22:15 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: grog@FreeBSD.org, danfe@nsu.ru, obrien@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/lukemftpd - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021114001954.55190A-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20021113.215618.62371469.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > AFAIC, regular ftpd is more secure and robust than lukemftpd. I've
> : > seen reports in the past saying that performance issues in lukemftpd
> : > are unavoidable WRT fixing them. Until we get performance and
> : > security up to what we have in ftpd right now, IMHO it's rather
> : > meaningless to compare features.
> :
> : This is the first report of this kind I've heard. Can you supply
> : details?
>
> The security part is easy: the last 3 or 4 ftp exploits to hit lukemftp
> havne't hit our base ftp because someone went through it on a paranoia
> bent in '94 or so and secured it.
And FTP exploits really suck due to retaining a saved uid of 0 so you can
open privileged ports--almost all exploits for FTPd's result in root (if
they're done right). BTW, we wrote a privilege-separated version of the
BSD FTPd as part of our PRIVMAN project (part of CBOSS):
http://opensource.nailabs.com/privman/
As the PRIVMAN technology matures, it might be something we consider
putting in FreeBSD at some point.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021114001954.55190A-100000>