Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: No shell => secure?
From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne () winternet com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:29:40 -0500 (CDT)
This would be a form of security via obscurity and would be subject to all the isues that rebound on basing secrutiy upon such. In other words, it might trip up a clueless-newbie/SK, but, in the ends would be easily bypassed by anyone with half a clue. Now, combining this with opther methods of better security practises might help some sites. But, if this was made a standard in any vendors product, as soon as it was public knowledge, with the release of the vendors OS relying upon such, it becomes public knowledge and then 'obscurity' part become moot. Thanks, Ron DuFresne On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
I can't say I've looked at much exploit-code so far but the POC exploits to gain root I've seen for Linux all executed /bin/sh. I'd like to know if this is true for in-the-wild exploits to root a box, too. If so, would it be a useful security measure to rename /bin/sh and other shells (after making sure that everything that needs them has been updated to the new name, of course)? I'm aware that a dedicated attacker who targets my box specifically will not be stopped by this but I don't think I have such enemies. I also know that DOS is still possible, but that's also not my concern. I'm simply worried about script kiddies using standard exploits against random servers on the Internet rooting my box faster than I can patch it. If renaming the shell is not enough, how about renaming all of the standard Unix top-level directories (such as /bin, /etc,...)? Would that defeat standard exploits to root a box? MSB _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart ***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!*** OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- No shell => secure? Matthias Benkmann (Jul 08)
- Re: No shell => secure? hax (Jul 08)
- Re: No shell => secure? npguy (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Kevin Ponds (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Matthias Benkmann (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Ron DuFresne (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Barry Fitzgerald (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Vincent Archer (Jul 12)
- Re: No shell => secure? daniel uriah clemens (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? npguy (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? hax (Jul 08)
- Re: No shell => secure? Nick FitzGerald (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Ron DuFresne (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Matthias Benkmann (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? hax (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? st3ng4h (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? hax (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Matthias Benkmann (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Kurt Seifried (Jul 09)
- Re: No shell => secure? Seth Alan Woolley (Jul 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: No shell => secure? Wall, Kevin (Jul 09)