Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:34:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Vincent Poy <vince@mail.MCESTATE.COM> To: Brian Buchanan <brian@thought.res.cmu.edu> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, JbHunt <johnnyu@accessus.net>, "[Mario1-]" <mario1@PrimeNet.Com> Subject: Re: securelevel (was: Re: security hole in FreeBSD) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970728173307.3844R-100000@mail.MCESTATE.COM> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970728200236.26892C-100000@thought.res.cmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Brian Buchanan wrote: =)Uh, that would defeat the purpose of securelevel. It's not supposed to be =)possible to ever lower it, except when dropping into single-user mode, and =)even allowing init to do so in that instance is risky IMHO - a few months =)ago I reported a hole, which I believe was fixed, that made it possible to =)lower the securelevel by attaching a debugger to init. Even though that's =)plugged now, it's still possible that there's another way to fool the =)kernel into thinking that process 1 is requesting that securelevel be =)lowered. Anything is possible since nothing is unhackable. Would running init at securelevel 2 and then have it reboot multi-user at a lower level be possible? Cheers, Vince - vince@MCESTATE.COM - vince@GAIANET.NET ________ __ ____ Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ] GaiaNet Corporation - M & C Estate / / / / | / | __] ] Beverly Hills, California USA 90210 / / / / / |/ / | __] ] HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970728173307.3844R-100000>