From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 10 08:14:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA25057 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.local.sunyit.edu (A-T34.rh.sunyit.edu [150.156.210.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA25052 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (perlsta@localhost) by server.local.sunyit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA07472 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:19:52 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: server.local.sunyit.edu: perlsta owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:19:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Alfred Perlstein X-Sender: perlsta@server.local.sunyit.edu To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Fix for the PROCFS security hole! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'm not to sure how to do it, but IF the procfs system could be modified to somehow act like the /dev/tty* system, where the second a user logs on the device is then owned by them and all other users access is revoked. This could work that a setuid proc when exec'd, procfs would automatically change permissions on it so that it is untainable. would this work? would it break a lot of stuff? i don't see why you would need to modify effectivly other peoples' programs except to cause some sort of security breach. ._________________________________________ __ _ |Alfred Perlstein - Programming & SysAdmin |perlsta@sunyit.edu |http://www.cs.sunyit.edu/~perlsta : ---"Have you seen my FreeBSD tatoo?" '