Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:10:14 +0200 From: gerarra@tin.it To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow Message-ID: <4146316C0000A1A7@ims3a.cp.tin.it> In-Reply-To: <006201c49d42$0c751aa0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4146316C0000A1A7>