From owner-freebsd-security Thu Mar 27 20:06:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA17345 for security-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:06:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from obiwan.aceonline.com.au (obiwan.aceonline.com.au [203.103.90.67]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA17337 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (adrian@localhost) by obiwan.aceonline.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00445; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:59:12 +0800 (WST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:59:12 +0800 (WST) From: Adrian Chadd To: "Thomas H. Ptacek" cc: marcs@znep.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Privileged ports... In-Reply-To: <199703271941.NAA23050@enteract.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Thomas H. Ptacek wrote: [cut] > Why do you want a UID per reserved port? What is this getting you? > Cause if someone breaks into sendmail (for example), in itself they couldn't do anything, but cause they are the same UID as all the other processes bound to priv'ed ports, its "lets-take-over-the-system-daemon" time .. maybe. Basically its so if someone finds a hole in a certain service, than that service would be affected, and not the others.. (Then you could implement nice checks on the process statistics, or something or other, to notice when a different program was started, or the executable was modified..) Can you tell I'm paranoid yet? :) > ---------------- > Thomas Ptacek at EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicago, IL [tqbf@enteract.com] > ---------------- > "If you're so special, why aren't you dead?" > > > -- Adrian Chadd | UNIX, MS-DOS and Windows ... | (also known as the Good, the bad and the | ugly..)