Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:11:01 -0600
From:      Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
To:        Jon Hamilton <hamilton@pobox.com>
Cc:        "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>, "Christopher G. Petrilli" <petrilli@dworkin.amber.org>, "Gentry A. Bieker" <gbieker@crown.NET>, security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Why is there no info on the QPOPPER hack? 
Message-ID:  <199807210311.VAA00475@lariat.lariat.org>
In-Reply-To: <199807210238.UAA29812@lariat.lariat.org>
References:  <Your message of "Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:52:20 MDT."             <199807202352.RAA27271@lariat.lariat.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:40 PM 7/20/98 -0500, Jon Hamilton wrote:
 
>I still think you're just ranting.  What does it mean to "have been 
>potentially compromised" anyway?  

It means that many of these systems are still just WAITING to be broken
into. There could be a lot more damage done -- we're talking millions
of dollars' worth.

>Maybe you've been working too long and too hard cleaning up after your
>breakin.  CVSup would work fine for what you're talking about, you'd just
>have to have a different tag which only got "known good patches for
>significant problems".  Of course, this would still have the problem of
>being a "pull" model, so you'd have to check "often enough".

Which means, given the typical e-mail volume an administrator must handle,
many people would not "pull" in time. I'd rather have a "push" model with the
ability to back out or opt out.

>You'd also have to be damn sure you trusted the person doing the checkins, 

Anyone who runs FreeBSD already places a lot of trust in the maintainers.

>and
>you'd have to be sure that you were in fact talking to the server you
>decided to trust.

Easily accomplished via cryptography.

>And you'd have to be certain that you trusted the patch
>as applied, both that it solved the problem it was meant to solve, and
>that it didn't introduce some other bogosity.  Most of these should be
>red flags shouting out that you don't really want to automate this 
>process, but I don't imagine that'll slow you down much.

I would rather automate it than see delays, break-ins, and duplicated
effort.

--Brett Glass


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807210311.VAA00475>