Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:32:39 -0400 From: Seth <seth@psychotic.aberrant.org> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Vivek Khera <khera@kcilink.com>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: adding "noschg" to ssh and friends Message-ID: <20010529183239.B14308@psychotic.aberrant.org> In-Reply-To: <200105292211.f4TMBpB30316@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 03:11:51PM -0700 References: <15124.4635.887375.682204@onceler.kciLink.com> <20010529145609.A1209@xor.obsecurity.org> <15124.7132.963202.560009@onceler.kciLink.com> <200105292211.f4TMBpB30316@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Can we agree that it (that is, securelevel > 0 and schg on selected binaries) raises the bar a bit higher? If so, it seems to me that it might be worth doing (though most appropriately on a user-by-user basis). Seth. On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 03:11:51PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote: > :>> marked, and it just seems to follow to me that ssh related binaries > :>> should as well. > : > :KK> No; schg isn't a security feature, at best it's an anti-foot-shooting > :KK> feature to prevent accidental trashing of the file. > : > :I disagree. If my machine is at securelevel > 0, schg is a damned > :fine security mesasure to protect sensitive programs from being > :trojaned. There's just no way around it short of having access to the > :console. > > I have to disagree with your disagreement. Short of making every > single program and configuration file in the entire system schg, all > that happens is that the hacker trojans your machine some other (and > possibly less detectable) way. > > -Matt > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010529183239.B14308>