Anton Karpov wrote:
2006/8/24, Stephan A. Rickauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
People from time to time say they don't want to have a compiler
installed on a productive system due to security issues. I don't
understand this. Isn't is too late anyway, if someone's already able to
make use of the compiler?
--
Removing compiler doesn't bring much more security to your system, but it
can make it a little bit safer. Very little bit, but safer. I mean, if your
system has local root hole, for example, in this case cracker should
compile his sploit somethere outside your box, and transfer binary file onto
it, thus, it takes more time than "cat > /tmp/.slp01t.c && gcc
/tmp/.spl01t.c && ./a.out". And usually, crackers limited in time resources.
Maybe immediately upon install, but what about when you need to update
it? If you don't have the infrastructure in place to create releases on
other machines to install on this machine, odds are you aren't going to
be doing updates like you should.
ta-da, theoretical advantage turned into a real threat.
The fact that people who don't put compilers on their system keep coming
back and asking these kinds of questions should indicate there's a real
risk here.
If you understand how to support your "tricked out" system, ok, sure,
maybe you can get a (small) overall advantage here, but when people
start following questionable advice without understanding the
implications, it is not good at all.
Nick.
