Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:40:36 +0100 (CET) From: Paul Herman <pherman@frenchfries.net> To: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net> Cc: <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Multiple vendors FTP denial of service Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103170911190.10083-100000@husten.security.at12.de> In-Reply-To: <20010316213716.D20830@speedy.gsinet>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > > To bad a setusercontext() call couldn't be easily implimented > > inside of set[e]uid() (it's in -lutil not -lc). I see too many > > FreeBSD admins that believe that their proftpds and qmails are > > protected by the limits set in /etc/login.conf. > > Well, the latter is recommended to be wrapped up in a > softlimit(1) invocation. And the former - as well as any other > program - could be treated the same. > > If login.conf isn't easily applied one is still free to make use > of ports/sysutils/daemontools. Yes, there are many solutions, most of which have already been posted. Thing is, even if you created ports/sysutils/cluestick, many admins would still intuitively believe that limits imposed by /etc/login.conf apply to all processes. The reality that only a select few daemons use /etc/login.conf is admittedly counter-intuitive. Perhaps this is more of a job for TrustedBSD's MAC policies, but it Would Be Nice if resource limits were set along with (e)uid. What do others think? Like I said, this could be done by wraping setusercontext() into setuid(), but it starts to get yucky when mixing userland login_cap functions with a system call. I'd be willing to come up with a patch for this, if it weren't so darn ugly. Would there be a cleaner way to do this? -Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.33.0103170911190.10083-100000>