Hey! Did you see what Richard Adams wrote on Aug 10 ?
RA> > Hey! Did you see what Marc Mutz wrote on Aug 9 ?
RA> >
RA> > MM> Steve Youngs wrote:
RA> > MM> >
RA> > MM> <snip>
RA> > MM> > MM> True, but then it just opens another door to attackers, because it is
RA> > MM> > MM> surely easier to modify a file (/etc/modules.conf) to load
RA> > MM> > MM> trojan_horse.o instead of ppp.o than poke around directly in the kernel
RA> > MM> > MM> image.
RA> > MM> >
RA> > MM> > Okay, granted, it would be far easier to modify /etc/modules.conf than it
RA> > MM> > would be to poke around in a kernel image. But to do this the attacker
RA> > MM> > would need to gain access to your box in the first place. And
RA> > MM> <snip>
RA> > MM> Unfortunately you snipped the answer to your question. I said that this
RA> > MM> would be a hypothetical attack, because there are other things you could
RA> > MM> break when you can write to the root partition. Note that I'm not only
RA> > MM> speaking of attacks when Linux is up'n'running. There are attacks
RA> > MM> possible much more easily if you have physical access to the box and
RA> > MM> e.g. boot dos to fiddle around in Linux's peritions.
RA>
RA> When in dos how does one mount an ext2 partition.??
Good point, Richard. It would be pretty difficult to access an
ext2 partition from DOS. However I have used an ext2 filesystem driver
for OS/2, and I've heard that there is a similar thing for Windoze. But
I'm pretty sure that the Windoze one is read-only. Which is a _good_
thing coz there ain't no way I'd ever let a Microsoft product anywhere
near my Linux partitions. :-)
RA> > Then, hypothetically speaking of course, if you let someone who
RA> > can't be trusted have physical access to your computer you deserve to have
RA> > your system trashed. :-)
RA>
RA> What is not hypothetical is the fact that network computers normaly speaking
RA> are behind locks and keys, or they are at least in our network and many
RA> other networks from my freinds and associates. There is no way anyone else
RA> other than the network administrator who can access the machines with his
RA> keys and have root privs. Others who can login to the net machines do not
RA> have any other privs, more than your normal user, so in my opinion most of
RA> Marc's thoughts could be considered pipe dreams, unless he is talking about
RA> his personal computer just sitting on a desk somewhere and he leaves a root
RA> window open when he goes to drink coffie in the company cantine, that would
RA> be his fault and his fault alone.
Nah, he'd be safe. He'd get back from the canteen in time because
the intruder would be still waiting for the computer to boot into DOS so
he could perform unspeakable nasties on Marc's ext2 partition. :-)
(don't worry Marc, I'm just having a little fun with you)
RA> > MM> > I think that the advantages of modules far outweigh the so called security
RA> > MM> > risk that you are talking about. And besides if you are that paranoid
RA> > MM> > about it you could always set the immutable bit on /etc/modules.conf. (man
RA> > MM> > chattr, man lsattr).
RA> > MM> See above.
RA> >
RA> > See above's above.
RA>
RA> There is nothing beter than modules, its just that we dont seem to be able
RA> to explain that to Marc.
Maybe we should try the subliminal approach...
((((Modules))))((((Are))))((((Great))))
((((You))))((((Are))))((((Feeling))))((((Sleepy))))
((((Modules))))((((Are))))((((Great))))
RA> > MM> If you run many different kernel versions like I do, you don't want the
RA> > MM> modules to come in your way:
RA> > MM> # /sbin/lilo
RA> > MM> Added linux *
RA> > MM> Added linux-2.2.7
RA> > MM> Added linux-2.2.9-md
RA> > MM> Added linux-2.3.8
RA> > MM> Added linux-2.3.9
RA> > MM> Added linux-2.2.10i
RA> >
RA> > Could you please explain how on earth this could be a problem. I,
RA> > too, run more than one kernel version (2.2.10 & 2.3.12). The modules are
RA> > kept in separate directories so there is no problem.
RA> > /lib/modules/2.2.10/
RA> > /lib/modules/2.3.12/
RA> > Or am I not understanding what you are trying to say?
RA>
RA> I have had upto 15 different kernels here, not one module has ever gotten in
RA> my way, i agree with Steve, you will need to explain what you mean here.
Eagerly waiting...
RA> > MM> Bottomline: You have your philosophy, that many others share with you
RA> > MM> (mostly "end users" for want of a better term), I have mine that also
RA> > MM> many people share (mostly "kernel hackers" FWOABT).
RA> >
RA> > I would disagree with this argument as well. Wouldn't a kernel
RA> > that uses modules be better for a "kernel hacker"? If a hacker is working
RA> > on something in the kernel he/she could insert their module into a running
RA> > kernel to test it, and if it didn't work, simply remove it, debug,
RA> > re-compile, re-insert into the same running kernel and re-test.
RA>
RA> That is another _big_ advantage, one which i have not mentioned, now one
RA> would think that a self proclamed "kernel hacker" (after all said and done
RA> thats the way Marc describes himself) would know about things like that.
I think it's possibly a fundamental lack of understanding of what
a module is, and how they can be utilized. I mean Marc is the first
person I've come into contact with who has programming knowledge (at least
that is what he is hinting at) of any type that doesn't think modules are
a good thing.
RA> > You on the other hand would have no alternative but to re-compile
RA> > your entire kernel and re-boot your computer. I guarantee, that after
RA> > the 16th successive re-boot you'll be saying to yourself "man, there's
RA> > gotta be a better way"
RA>
RA> Thats hitting the nail on the head...
But will the nail drive home straight or will it get twisted and break?
RA> > Even Linus uses modules. :-)
RA>
RA> Was it not his idea as well.
Never, have so many owed so much to so few... oops, wrong speech :-)
Yeah, it was his idea, and aren't we grateful?
Regards, Steve Youngs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 34307457
------------------------------------------------------------
| __ |
| Isn't it good to know that / / __ ___ __ ____ __ |
| There _IS_ an alternative! / /__ / // _ \/ // /\ \/ / |
| /____//_//_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ |
------------------------------------------------------------
