From owner-freebsd-security Tue Jul 29 03:44:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA03309 for security-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from artorius.sunflower.com (artorius.sunflower.com [24.124.0.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA03304 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (lists@localhost) by artorius.sunflower.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA10176; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 05:43:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 05:43:29 -0500 (CDT) From: "Stephen D. Spencer" To: Robert Watson cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: security hole in FreeBSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Robert, That problem is much less prevalent on cable modem systems (or potentially less of a problem :) As a cable-internet ISP, it was decided before we made the service available that there is no reason to give customers shell access to our main servers. It is an obvious requirement of such a network for potential customers to have their own machine. They can configure tcp/ip clients to their hearts' content, and if they really want a *nix shell, there's Linux and the various BSD derivatives. We offer pop3 accounts, but many of our customers have their mail directly delivered to their personal machines. This cuts down on the number of login requests that are being passed over various segments to our main servers. Also, the cable modems that we use (Zenith Homeworks Universal) operate on a MAC filter concept (limits the number of machines connected to any given modem) and cannot be put into a promisciuous mode by the customer. -Stephen Spencer admin guy Sunflower Datavision Lawrence, KS On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Robert Watson wrote: > > Well, once you have one host, you have all the hosts on the same ethernet > segment. Typically, though, problems with sniffing occur on college dorm > networks, which run large numbers of less-well-managed Linux/etc hosts. > This may be an increasing problem on Cable-modem networks, which I > understand work something like Ethernet, in that they are broadcast > networks for a local segment. Also, who is to say that occasionally > routers or ISP machines don't get broken into, and sniffing occurs? Any > of your users could be logging in from an untrusted network, so in essense > you are relying on that network to be secure as well as your own.