Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bu.edu!nntp-read!jc From: jc@raven.bu.edu (James Cameron) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Mysterious security hole Message-ID: Date: 21 Jun 91 17:34:41 GMT References: <91161.131540SCHDAVZ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> <52@bvnews1.bv.tek.com> <91Jun21.071531edt.18756@me.utoronto.ca> Sender: news@bu.edu Organization: What do you mean 'That *can't* be done????' Lines: 32 In-reply-to: sun@me.utoronto.ca's message of 21 Jun 91 11:15:44 GMT >>>>> On 21 Jun 91 11:15:44 GMT, sun@me.utoronto.ca (Andy Sun) said: |> mike@raven.bv.tek.com (Michael Ewan) writes: [...deleted message about having '.' in path is bad...] |> If this is really the case, I am more interested in how that "someone" |> can write |> to /, rather than my having '.' at the beginning of my path. There is |> obviously |> a bigger security hole somewhere on the system than this if some non-admin |> people can write to /. |> Andy The example of having something in / is bad for obvious reasons. But what about /tmp? A script named say "la" (common type of "ls") which does a chmod 777 /, sends mail to the person and then echos "la: Command not found" would do the job nicely. jc -- -- James Cameron (jc@raven.bu.edu) Signal Processing and Interpretation Lab. Boston, Mass (617) 353-2879 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "But to risk we must, for the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing. For the man or woman who risks nothing, has nothing, does nothing, is nothing." (Quote from the eulogy for the late Christa McAuliffe.)