Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: James Harlow <james@××××××××××××××.nu>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] Built in integrity?
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:19:29
Message-Id: 20040210231841.GD28649@james.is.never.wrong.nu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] Built in integrity? by Daniel Heemann
1 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Heemann wrote:
2 > On Tuesday 10 February 2004 16:46, you wrote:
3 > > If you have access to a shell you can upload any file\application.
4 > >
5 > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22uudecode+executable%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=
6 > >UTF -8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1993Mar7.050518.15646%40freenet.carleton.ca&rnum=1
7 >
8 > Perhaps another software which should not be installed on the system if not
9 > necessary ;)
10
11 You can trivially encode it with a perl script on the attacker's side,
12 and "echo -e \147" (or whatever) on the victim's side. Or are you saying
13 echo is also optional software that shouldn't be installed on secure
14 servers? ;-)
15
16 (BTW, I understand and agree with your point that it's raising the bar
17 for attackers, I just don't think that deserves the title of "more secure".)
18
19 --
20 When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
21
22 --
23 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-security] Built in integrity? James Dennis <james@×××××××××××××.com>