| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:24:34 +0100 |
| 2 |
Daniel Heemann <daniel.heemann@×××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tuesday 10 February 2004 14:15, Daniel Brandt wrote: |
| 5 |
> > If you know you won't find an attacker _before_ he's playing with your |
| 6 |
> > compiler you should be more worried about your perimeter. |
| 7 |
> I do not know that - but do you know that you'll find him before? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'm certain of it. As certain as I can be with honeytokens, host-based IDS, homebrew scripts and years of experience. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Hmm, let's say the attacker gains access to the machine, the firewall blocks |
| 13 |
> all binary transfer (I know uuencode/decode, but lets think the attacker is |
| 14 |
> not in the position to transfer executables onto the compromised system, |
| 15 |
> perhaps he can't transfer any files) and the attacker only needs 10 lines |
| 16 |
> of c-code to exploit the kernel or whatever - don't worry about if he can |
| 17 |
> compile the 10 lines or not? |
| 18 |
> Perhaps also the system runs on alpha hardware but the attacker only has x86 |
| 19 |
> binaries etc.. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Too hypothetic, transfer of a binary file will be possible if there is two-way communication. Non x86 hardware is not a problem because of cross compiling. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> never said that bsd is better/inferior btw... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Understood. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> I don't want to discuss this further on this list as it's not a gentoo |
| 28 |
> specific problem and I still think that for production systems there are |
| 29 |
> some alternatives available... |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This is a gentoo issue since gentoo ships with a live compiler in it's default setting, making it a must. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
But whatever the case, alternatives exist and individual security measures are always of some use. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Cheers, |
| 37 |
Daniel |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives