Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:25424 alt.security:2462 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!sequoia!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,alt.security Subject: Re: BSD tty security, part 3: How to Fix It Message-ID: <19250@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 6 May 91 13:10:34 GMT References: <8993:May415:59:4491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <17916:May522:46:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) Organization: Lone Star Cat Emporium and BBQ Grill Lines: 16 X-Clever-Slogan: Help Prevent Robbery. Tax the IRS. In article <17916:May522:46:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >It won't be any extra work if they pick the current maximum fd and >kludge getdtablesize() to subtract 1 from its answer. In any case, all >that's important for security is that *some* file descriptor be used >rather than the old /dev/tty driver. Naw, this is still more than you have to do. What happens if I move u.u_ttyd from the u-page to the process table? The reason you want to use a file descriptor is because the file table is accessible - u_ttyd isn't. How about fixing that problem instead of creating another hack? -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."