helpList for discussing difficulties in getting, building and installingOpenSolaris. 37,064 486 / 1,476 Dec 3, 2006 5:04 PMby: jwoehr | Forum profile

I discovered the announcement of a module to make Apache OpenSolaris privileges(5) aware. I haven't played with this yet but the description alone sounds very useful. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev at httpd dot apache dot org/msg42159.html Seems like the same type of change could be used to have different TX labels too. -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ security-discuss mailing list security-discuss at...

Forking a child per-request is more overhead than many users find acceptable. As regards the semantics, the basic premise is that a lock (or perhaps more appropriately a key) object be required to unlock it. That object is then not exposed to untrusted code. That reduces the risk to one of malicious code that can guess the location in memory of the key.

Dan McDonald writes: > > We have changes for the OpenSolaris CIFS client that > > implement SMB > > "signing". For an Overview of SMB signing, see: > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/887429 > > You really should also put this on security-discuss. In fact, I think I'll do that now! [Added author back into cc-list.] > I won't even begin to discuss...

On 11/17/08 13:27, Darren Reed wrote: > This is likely to trip up a lot of people... I agree with your assessment that the current solution is not optimal. I'd rather have an installer that refuses to take an empty password for root. IMO it's ok to make it hard configure an insecure system. I'll take this up with the new-install folks, since most of the current installer is on life support and I didn't dare to do...

Bart, where did the original request for this finer grained user application environment policy control come from? If customers are asking, please let us know. -Christoph Scott Rotondo wrote: > Glenn Faden wrote: >> Bart, >> >> In general I don't think that the existing RBAC implementation is the >> right architecture for implementing restrictive environments. The...

On 18/11/08 04:41 PM, Tony Nguyen wrote: > Darren Reed wrote: >> Location: inetd.c 302-327 >> Type: T >> Priority: 1 >> Comment: first, will scf_instance_destroy(NULL) crash inetd? >> > scf_instance_destroy() just returns if argument is NULL. If that's true then shouldn't this behaviour be documented on the man page for this function? Darren...

James Carlson wrote: > Josh Hurst writes: > > On 10/29/08, James Carlson wrote: > > > The usage case is for processes that are attempting to use > > > user-configured strings that may have been configured with a different > > > level of privilege than the current process. It's an escalation threat. > > > > Use rksh to prevent...

Darren J Moffat wrote: > I discovered the announcement of a module to make Apache OpenSolaris > privileges(5) aware. > > I haven't played with this yet but the description alone sounds very useful. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev at httpd dot apache dot org/msg42159.html > > Seems like the same type of change could be used to have different TX > labels too. >...

> We have changes for the OpenSolaris CIFS client that > implement SMB > "signing". For an Overview of SMB signing, see: > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/887429 You really should also put this on security-discuss. In fact, I think I'll do that now! Security-discuss folks, please follow this link: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=83064 to see the original post. > 9: What...

Nick Kew wrote: > Thanks for your interest! > > I guess this is the right forum to ask about the major security issue remaining. Namely, that mod_privileges may run untrusted code (e.g. a user's PHP scripts), and a malicious, privileges-aware script could escalate to anything in EPRIV. In particular, it'll have access to SET_ID. > > As it stands, the best solution I have to that is a Perl script to...