Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 07:00:01PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > BTS? > > Bug Tracking System > > http://www.debian.org/Bugs > > i don't remember which tetex package has the long conversion about the > issue though... Ahh. Thanks. I looked there initially to see if this was reported for screen

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:56:02AM +, Jim Breton wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:47:55PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > > > Still, why does /var/lib/texmf/* need to be publically writeable? > > > > > > design flaws in tetex. see the BTS for a long discussion about it. > > Which packages adds thes

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:47:55PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > No. It's just not globally writeable. ah > > > Still, why does /var/lib/texmf/* need to be publically writeable? > > > > design flaws in tetex. see the BTS for a long discussion about it. i actually misspoke here, its really /var/spool/

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Peter Cordes
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 06:17:59PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > now what quota (nor moving /var/run/screen) will NOT fix is stuffing > /var via /usr/bin/logger (that is just a bit more work then the above) An important difference between those methods of filling the disk is that the log file m

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 06:33:01PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:16:19PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > > > > For my system: > > > > [13:09:22] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/root>> find /var -perm +o+w -mount > > [13:09:26] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/root>> > > > > I've not had problems. :) > >

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:16:19PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > For my system: > > [13:09:22] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/root>> find /var -perm +o+w -mount > [13:09:26] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/root>> > > I've not had problems. :) you have removed /var/lock? and i presume made /var/tmp its own partition. > Stil

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:10:23PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > How will they do that if the only thing owned by screen are the directories? > You can always do fstat after an open. oh i misunderstood you, what would happen if they removed the socket? i would guess nothing if sockets work like an

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Matthew W Miller wrote: > {Big Snip} > How would a quota stop the user from stuffing /var to its limit? Isn't > that part of the problem where the user could stuff /var and hemorrage the > logs? Through not allowing the user full access to the free space.

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Matthew W Miller wrote: > {Big Snip} > How would a quota stop the user from stuffing /var to its limit? Isn't > that part of the problem where the user could stuff /var and hemorrage the > logs? hmm quota seems to stop that just fine here: [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 05:52:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > > What screen does there is to create subdirs which are then used > > to hold a users pipes. Now these subdirs are owned by the user > > that runs screen. The hassle with this is t

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 05:54:32PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > i think this is a bad idea, if another hole is found in screen then > users can spy on other users sessions. as it is now if a hole is in > screen users can mess with the utmp file, thats it. which is not that big a > deal. (i have

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Matthew W Miller
{Big Snip} How would a quota stop the user from stuffing /var to its limit? Isn't that part of the problem where the user could stuff /var and hemorrage the logs? ~mmiller ::> ::>more headaches for /tmp cleaners and it does not solve any of the ::>above problems. to solve the above problems enfo

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 10:30:26AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What screen does there is to create subdirs which are then used > > to hold a users pipes. Now these subdirs are owned by the user > > that runs screen. The hassle with this is that it gives the use

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > After installing this utility (which has to be amongst my very > favourite) I noticed something interesting int he way it behaves. > Basically, screen does what I first thought of when compiling it > for myself, which is to put its pipes in /va

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 07:00:01PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > BTS? > > Bug Tracking System > > http://www.debian.org/Bugs > > i don't remember which tetex package has the long conversion about the > issue though... Ahh. Thanks. I looked there initially to see if this was reported for scree

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:56:02AM +, Jim Breton wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:47:55PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > > > Still, why does /var/lib/texmf/* need to be publically writeable? > > > > > > design flaws in tetex. see the BTS for a long discussion about it. > > Which packages adds the

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:47:55PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > No. It's just not globally writeable. ah > > > Still, why does /var/lib/texmf/* need to be publically writeable? > > > > design flaws in tetex. see the BTS for a long discussion about it. i actually misspoke here, its really /var/spool

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Peter Cordes
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 06:17:59PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > now what quota (nor moving /var/run/screen) will NOT fix is stuffing > /var via /usr/bin/logger (that is just a bit more work then the above) An important difference between those methods of filling the disk is that the log file

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 06:33:01PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:16:19PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > > > > For my system: > > > > [13:09:22] root@nessie:/root>> find /var -perm +o+w -mount > > [13:09:26] root@nessie:/root>> > > > > I've not had problems. :) > > you have re

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:16:19PM +1100, CaT wrote: > > For my system: > > [13:09:22] root@nessie:/root>> find /var -perm +o+w -mount > [13:09:26] root@nessie:/root>> > > I've not had problems. :) you have removed /var/lock? and i presume made /var/tmp its own partition. > Still, why does

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:10:23PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > How will they do that if the only thing owned by screen are the directories? > You can always do fstat after an open. oh i misunderstood you, what would happen if they removed the socket? i would guess nothing if sockets work like a

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Matthew W Miller wrote: > {Big Snip} > How would a quota stop the user from stuffing /var to its limit? Isn't > that part of the problem where the user could stuff /var and hemorrage the > logs? Through not allowing the user full access to the free space.

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Matthew W Miller wrote: > {Big Snip} > How would a quota stop the user from stuffing /var to its limit? Isn't > that part of the problem where the user could stuff /var and hemorrage the > logs? hmm quota seems to stop that just fine here: [eb@socrates e

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 05:52:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > > What screen does there is to create subdirs which are then used > > to hold a users pipes. Now these subdirs are owned by the user > > that runs screen. The hassle with this is

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 05:54:32PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > i think this is a bad idea, if another hole is found in screen then > users can spy on other users sessions. as it is now if a hole is in > screen users can mess with the utmp file, thats it. which is not that big a > deal. (i hav

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Matthew W Miller
{Big Snip} How would a quota stop the user from stuffing /var to its limit? Isn't that part of the problem where the user could stuff /var and hemorrage the logs? ~mmiller ::> ::>more headaches for /tmp cleaners and it does not solve any of the ::>above problems. to solve the above problems enf

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 10:30:26AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What screen does there is to create subdirs which are then used > > to hold a users pipes. Now these subdirs are owned by the user > > that runs screen. The hassle with this is that it gives the us

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > After installing this utility (which has to be amongst my very > favourite) I noticed something interesting int he way it behaves. > Basically, screen does what I first thought of when compiling it > for myself, which is to put its pipes in /v

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Herbert Xu
CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What screen does there is to create subdirs which are then used > to hold a users pipes. Now these subdirs are owned by the user > that runs screen. The hassle with this is that it gives the user What about making screen setuid screen and make screen the owner of

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Herbert Xu
CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What screen does there is to create subdirs which are then used > to hold a users pipes. Now these subdirs are owned by the user > that runs screen. The hassle with this is that it gives the user What about making screen setuid screen and make screen the owner o

[Christian.Winter@COC-AG.DE: horde library bug - unchecked from-address]

2000-09-08 Thread Ivan E. Moore II
FYI - Debian potato and woody versions fall into this...I will have fixed .deb's done this evening and uploaded to the appropriate locations. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645

Re: Editing and storing encrypted files

2000-09-08 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 17:50:05 -0500, Herbert Ho wrote: > how about encrypted loopback? just need the crypto/int'l patch for the > kernel. no other software. but then again it doesn't use gpg That's not a disadvantage, as encrypted filesystems are a different area (protect against differen

[Christian.Winter@COC-AG.DE: horde library bug - unchecked from-address]

2000-09-08 Thread Ivan E. Moore II
FYI - Debian potato and woody versions fall into this...I will have fixed .deb's done this evening and uploaded to the appropriate locations. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 764

Re: Editing and storing encrypted files

2000-09-08 Thread J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 17:50:05 -0500, Herbert Ho wrote: > how about encrypted loopback? just need the crypto/int'l patch for the > kernel. no other software. but then again it doesn't use gpg That's not a disadvantage, as encrypted filesystems are a different area (protect against differe

Re: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Giacomo Mulas
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:13:50AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > deb http://security.debian.org potato/updates main contrib non-free > > > tree in the sources.list file of my system running woody? > > > > Yes. Put it at the bottom of the list. > >

Re: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Michael Meskes
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:13:50AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > deb http://security.debian.org potato/updates main contrib non-free > > tree in the sources.list file of my system running woody? > > Yes. Put it at the bottom of the list. Sorry, but that does really make sense to me. The upload

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 02:06:15PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote: > CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [snip sensible stuff] > > As such I reckon it's best if the screen directory is left in /tmp where > > the authors initially put it. It's inconvenient but doesn't cause the > > problems above. > > No

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:12:38AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > > a. a possible way around quotas set on /home b. a method of fully > > filling up /var, thereby potentially causing log entries to be > > lost which, in turn, gives the user anic

Re: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 01:08:18PM +0200, Giacomo Mulas wrote: > Am I getting anything wrong here? Should I include the > deb http://security.debian.org potato/updates main contrib non-free > tree in the sources.list file of my system running woody? Yes. Put it at the bottom of the list. -- Mik

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > a. a possible way around quotas set on /home b. a method of fully > filling up /var, thereby potentially causing log entries to be > lost which, in turn, gives the user anice, untracable way of then How would this be different from putting thi

RE: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Giacomo Mulas
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Pollywog wrote: > I think you need to run 'apt-get update' or update from 'dselect' if that is > what you are using. There is a newer version of libc for woody. Where is that? I frequently run apt-get update etc. on my system, and moreover I just checked ftp.debian.org (216.6

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Tim Haynes
CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip sensible stuff] > As such I reckon it's best if the screen directory is left in /tmp where > the authors initially put it. It's inconvenient but doesn't cause the > problems above. No indeed, but you have problems with folks who periodically clean out their /

possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
After installing this utility (which has to be amongst my very favourite) I noticed something interesting int he way it behaves. Basically, screen does what I first thought of when compiling it for myself, which is to put its pipes in /var/run/screen. What screen does there is to create subdirs wh

RE: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Pollywog
I think you need to run 'apt-get update' or update from 'dselect' if that is what you are using. There is a newer version of libc for woody. -- Andrew On 08-Sep-2000 Giacomo Mulas wrote: > About the recent security advisory on the glibc vulnerabilities: > fixed versions have been released

libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Giacomo Mulas
About the recent security advisory on the glibc vulnerabilities: fixed versions have been released for slink and potato, but (as far as I know) none for woody. I am currently using the potato version, recompiled from sources, on my woody box, apparently with no problems, but should not the

Re: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Giacomo Mulas
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:13:50AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > deb http://security.debian.org potato/updates main contrib non-free > > > tree in the sources.list file of my system running woody? > > > > Yes. Put it at the bottom of the list. > >

Re: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Michael Meskes
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:13:50AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > deb http://security.debian.org potato/updates main contrib non-free > > tree in the sources.list file of my system running woody? > > Yes. Put it at the bottom of the list. Sorry, but that does really make sense to me. The upload

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 02:06:15PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote: > CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [snip sensible stuff] > > As such I reckon it's best if the screen directory is left in /tmp where > > the authors initially put it. It's inconvenient but doesn't cause the > > problems above. > > N

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:12:38AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > > a. a possible way around quotas set on /home b. a method of fully > > filling up /var, thereby potentially causing log entries to be > > lost which, in turn, gives the user ani

Re: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 01:08:18PM +0200, Giacomo Mulas wrote: > Am I getting anything wrong here? Should I include the > deb http://security.debian.org potato/updates main contrib non-free > tree in the sources.list file of my system running woody? Yes. Put it at the bottom of the list. -- Mi

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:00:19AM +1100, CaT wrote: > a. a possible way around quotas set on /home b. a method of fully > filling up /var, thereby potentially causing log entries to be > lost which, in turn, gives the user anice, untracable way of then How would this be different from putting th

RE: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Giacomo Mulas
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Pollywog wrote: > I think you need to run 'apt-get update' or update from 'dselect' if that is > what you are using. There is a newer version of libc for woody. Where is that? I frequently run apt-get update etc. on my system, and moreover I just checked ftp.debian.org (216.

Re: possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread Tim Haynes
CaT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip sensible stuff] > As such I reckon it's best if the screen directory is left in /tmp where > the authors initially put it. It's inconvenient but doesn't cause the > problems above. No indeed, but you have problems with folks who periodically clean out their

possible security flaw in screen 3.9.5-9

2000-09-08 Thread CaT
After installing this utility (which has to be amongst my very favourite) I noticed something interesting int he way it behaves. Basically, screen does what I first thought of when compiling it for myself, which is to put its pipes in /var/run/screen. What screen does there is to create subdirs w

RE: libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Pollywog
I think you need to run 'apt-get update' or update from 'dselect' if that is what you are using. There is a newer version of libc for woody. -- Andrew On 08-Sep-2000 Giacomo Mulas wrote: > About the recent security advisory on the glibc vulnerabilities: > fixed versions have been released

libc6 for woody?

2000-09-08 Thread Giacomo Mulas
About the recent security advisory on the glibc vulnerabilities: fixed versions have been released for slink and potato, but (as far as I know) none for woody. I am currently using the potato version, recompiled from sources, on my woody box, apparently with no problems, but should not the