Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!d75!awdprime!greenber.austin.ibm.com!jfh From: jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: Where does getty get its information? Message-ID: <6533@awdprime.UUCP> Date: 9 Apr 91 21:00:48 GMT References: <6@kb2ear.ampr.org> <6411@awdprime.UUCP> <1991Apr08.154742.19459@edm.uucp> Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP Organization: Best Care South of the Red River, LCC, Austin, Republic of Texas Lines: 26 In article <1991Apr08.154742.19459@edm.uucp> geoff@edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman) writes: > There is an APAR in for this problem and I believe a fix is also >now available which will allow permissions for ports to stay at 0666. > > For the last time SUID is not a fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The problem with leaving the ports 0666 is that any process can then park itself on the port and pretend to be the login process. Simple trojan horses can easily take advantage of this "feature". The advantage of restricting access to the port to root processes is that you can control what is "root" better than you can control what isn't. [ Which is to say, that allowing just anyone to use the port means they can do just anything with it. ] Leaving a trojan horse behind you when you log out isn't a problem since there is some degree of accountability [ You can see who last used the port without having to resort to all manner of object auditing. ], and really can't be stopped anyhow. Third party trojan horses =can= be stopped, and therefore =should= be prevented. Accessibility and security are opposites. Serial ports should be secure since they are the mechanism used to gain access to the system. That means that changes which make them more accessible generally will make the system less "secure". -- John F. Haugh II | I've Been Moved | MaBellNet: (512) 838-4340 SneakerNet: 809/1D064 | AGAIN ! | VNET: LCCB386 at AUSVMQ BangNet: ..!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!snowball.austin.ibm.com!jfh (e-i-e-i-o)