From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 24 22:58:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A8F16A416 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:58:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4425F43D6B for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:58:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kAOMwd04009094; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:58:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4567791F.9070102@samsco.org> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:58:39 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Malone References: <200611242042.aa66912@boole.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <200611242042.aa66912@boole.maths.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: FreeBSD Stable , "O. Hartmann" Subject: Re: UFS Bug: FreeBSD 6.1/6.2/7.0: MOKB-08-11-2006, CVE-2006-5824, MOKB-03-11-2006, CVE-2006-5679 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:58:51 -0000 David Malone wrote: >>These two bugs are shown for FreeBSD only and I guess, Solaris and other >>BSDs still use UFS. Are they more robust against this exploit or type >>of exploit? > > > I don't know of a concerted effort by anyone to improve UFS in this > way. I would guess that the odd bug would have been resolved, but > no large scale work. > > David. Another thing to keep in mind is that filesystem mounting is only available to the super-user. If a feature came along such as automatically mounting USB drives, these bugs would indeed be critical. But for now, they are not. Scott