From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 18 10:10:31 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A5E16A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:10:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vsmtp1.tin.it (vsmtp1.tin.it [212.216.176.141])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE5043D54
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:10:14 +0000 (GMT)	(envelope-from gerarra@tin.it)
Received: from ims3a.cp.tin.it (192.168.70.103) by vsmtp1.tin.it (7.0.027)
	id 414B11F200042DDD for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org;
	Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:10:14 +0200
Received: from [192.168.70.181] by ims3a.cp.tin.it with HTTP;
	Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:10:14 +0200
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:10:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4146316C0000A1A7@ims3a.cp.tin.it>
In-Reply-To: <006201c49d42$0c751aa0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>
From: gerarra@tin.it
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:10:32 -0000


>> In <001801c49d38$1c8cb790$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>, Matt Emmerton
><matt@gsicomp.on.ca> typed:
>> > I disagree.  It really comes down to how secure you want FreeBSD to
be,
>and
>> > the attitude of "we don't need to protect against this case because
>anyone
>> > who does this is asking for trouble anyway" is one of the main reaso=
n
>why
>> > security holes exist in products today.  (Someone else had brought
this
>up
>> > much earlier on in the thread.)
>>
>> You haven't been paying close enough attention to the discussion. To
>> exploit this "security problem" you have to be root. If it's an
>> external attacker, you're already owned.
>
>I'm well aware of that fact.  That's still not a reason to protect again=
st
>the problem.
>
>If your leaky bucket has 10 holes in it, would you at least try and plug=

>some of them?
>

In my post I told that this is *NOT* exploitable but if somebody finds a
method? what you can say? In underground comunities it's not so rare, pat=
ching
is better than having a new exploits for freebsd. I was very deluded by
this approach to potential security problem... 
(I repeat: *POTENTIAL*).

rookie