atom feed200 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-securityRe: securelevel (was: Re: security ho...
FromSent OnAttachments
43 earlier messages
Jonathan A. ZdziarskiJul 28, 1997 1:47 pm 
Jonathan A. ZdziarskiJul 28, 1997 1:51 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 28, 1997 1:54 pm 
Nate WilliamsJul 28, 1997 2:00 pm 
Ollivier RobertJul 28, 1997 2:07 pm 
Matthew N. DoddJul 28, 1997 2:14 pm 
Karl DenningerJul 28, 1997 2:42 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 2:43 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 3:01 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 3:06 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 3:10 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 3:25 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 3:28 pm 
Matthew N. DoddJul 28, 1997 3:30 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 3:30 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 3:44 pm 
Brian BuchananJul 28, 1997 4:06 pm 
Gary Clark IIJul 28, 1997 4:06 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 4:14 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 4:16 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 4:18 pm 
Matthew N. DoddJul 28, 1997 4:18 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 4:19 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 4:25 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 4:30 pm 
Brian BuchananJul 28, 1997 4:48 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 4:59 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 5:00 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:02 pm 
Brian BuchananJul 28, 1997 5:09 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:19 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:20 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 5:22 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:26 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:30 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 5:30 pm 
Brian BuchananJul 28, 1997 5:32 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 5:33 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:34 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 5:36 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:40 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 5:44 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 5:45 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:49 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 5:53 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 5:57 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 6:01 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 6:01 pm 
Brian BuchananJul 28, 1997 6:19 pm 
Brian BuchananJul 28, 1997 6:24 pm 
Matthew N. DoddJul 28, 1997 6:41 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 28, 1997 6:59 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 28, 1997 7:00 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 7:01 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 7:04 pm 
Matthew N. DoddJul 28, 1997 7:19 pm 
John PreislerJul 28, 1997 7:31 pm 
Brian BuchananJul 28, 1997 7:52 pm 
John DowdalJul 28, 1997 8:29 pm 
Annelise AndersonJul 28, 1997 8:41 pm 
Nate WilliamsJul 28, 1997 9:09 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 9:12 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 9:15 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 9:19 pm 
Heikki SuonsivuJul 28, 1997 9:33 pm 
Jan KoumJul 28, 1997 9:39 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 9:49 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 10:05 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 10:14 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 10:27 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 10:28 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 10:35 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 10:37 pm 
John-David ChildsJul 28, 1997 10:38 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 10:40 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 10:44 pm 
Gary PalmerJul 28, 1997 10:50 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 10:55 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 10:59 pm 
Vincent PoyJul 28, 1997 11:01 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 11:07 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 11:11 pm 
Jordan K. HubbardJul 28, 1997 11:16 pm 
Sergei S. LaskavyJul 29, 1997 12:13 am 
John-David ChildsJul 29, 1997 2:09 am 
NarviJul 29, 1997 2:48 am 
Stephen D. SpencerJul 29, 1997 3:43 am 
Robert WatsonJul 29, 1997 5:32 am 
Adam ShostackJul 29, 1997 5:49 am 
Robert WatsonJul 29, 1997 6:39 am 
Nate WilliamsJul 29, 1997 7:19 am 
Rodney W. GrimesJul 29, 1997 8:58 am 
Warner LoshJul 29, 1997 9:25 am 
Warner LoshJul 29, 1997 9:34 am 
Christopher PetrilliJul 29, 1997 9:52 am 
Jim ShanklandJul 29, 1997 9:57 am 
John DowdalJul 29, 1997 10:50 am 
Poul-Henning KampJul 29, 1997 12:05 pm 
Bill PechterJul 29, 1997 12:29 pm 
Matthew HuntJul 29, 1997 12:37 pm 
57 later messages
Subject:Re: securelevel (was: Re: security hole in FreeBSD)
From:Brian Buchanan (bri@thought.res.cmu.edu)
Date:Jul 28, 1997 6:24:35 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-security

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Vincent Poy wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Brian Buchanan wrote:

=)Uh, that would defeat the purpose of securelevel. It's not supposed to be =)possible to ever lower it, except when dropping into single-user mode, and =)even allowing init to do so in that instance is risky IMHO - a few months =)ago I reported a hole, which I believe was fixed, that made it possible to =)lower the securelevel by attaching a debugger to init. Even though that's =)plugged now, it's still possible that there's another way to fool the =)kernel into thinking that process 1 is requesting that securelevel be =)lowered.

Anything is possible since nothing is unhackable. Would running init at securelevel 2 and then have it reboot multi-user at a lower level be possible?

That defeats it just the same. The attacker breaks in, reboots the system into multi-user with securelevel 0, removes schg flags, alters init, the kernel, /bin/login, whatever, kills the logs, raises securelevel back to 2 to cover his tracks. Allowing the securelevel to be lowered and the system to return to multi-user mode without operator confirmation is a bad thing - it completely defeats its purpose. If it's not possible to do maintenance at the local console, it's probably best not to use securelevel.