Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?
From: Barton L. Phillips (bartonphillips_at_sbcglobal.net)Date: 04/22/05
- Next message: Rick Moen: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Previous message: Martin Sch "Re: Myths"
- In reply to: azuredu: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- Next in thread: azuredu: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- Reply: azuredu: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:26:07 GMTazuredu wrote:
> It is true that tests using ls and cat don't prove anything and are
> useless. However, I don't think you are ready to accept my following
> claim, at least without first testing with ls and cat. It is true that
> I should have put some more warnings somewhere, but nowadays who is
> reading the help pages before typing into the textarea?
>
> I claim that the challenge can be broken only in one of the following
> two cases.
>
> 1. A stupid bug in the sysmask package. I found one in the first day of
> the challenge, which however did not let people get the unreadable
> file; no more is propping up thereafter.
>
> By the way, the bug is not yet fixed in the public site, but will be
> within a few days.
>
> 2. A nasty bug in the kernel, leading to a privilege elevation. Way
> more nasty than the recent ones behind sys_uselib() and sys_futex().
> What is the probability of such a bug?
>
> So sysmask bug put aside, the challenge is hopeless if you don't have a
> privilege elevation which you know how to exploit. All this is well
> explained in the documentation; but who is ready to believe such a
> claim without first tried some ls and cat? And even having tried?
>
> It is true that many utilities are missing in the environment. But the
> first motive is to save place, as everything should go into a cd.
> Anyway I'd better leave it this way, for otherwise people would have
> more useless things to play with and would waste more time.
>
It seems to me the "challenge" would be more interesting if I could
telnet into the system. Doing everything via a web form is not very
informative or interesting. In fact how do I know there is even a system
behind the form. I could do everything in a php script and say it is the
output of a secure system.
- Next message: Rick Moen: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Previous message: Martin Sch "Re: Myths"
- In reply to: azuredu: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- Next in thread: azuredu: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- Reply: azuredu: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Featured Product
GFI LANguard Network Security Scanner
Are hackers finding a way into your network?
Identify and repair network vulnerabilities with the #1 vulnerability scanner. Download a FREE trial!
GFI LANguard Network Security Scanner is the #1 Windows commercial security scanner as voted by Nmap users for two years running. It is a solution that allows you to scan, detect, assess and rectify any security vulnerabilities on your network.
Find out more about GFI LANguard and download your FREE 30 day trial today!
Relevant Pages
- Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?
... It is true that tests using ls and cat don't prove anything and are ... A stupid
bug in the sysmask package. ... A nasty bug in the kernel, leading to a privilege elevation.
... more useless things to play with and would waste more time. ... (comp.os.linux.security) - Re: kernel BUG at lib/kernel_lock.c:83! - 2.6.19-1.2895.fc6
... kernel was tainted and just look at the "actual message", ... I had no reason
to create a bugzilla report because, ... provided in my was interested because it appears
to be the same bug ... kernels are completely useless around here along with that
phony bug report ... (Fedora) - Re: Delphi QC Top Voted
... It would still be useless because it took 1,5 years to get them fixed. ... Keep
customers up to date with their bug reports ... > that a patch isn't forthcoming
makes any comment on the efficacy of QC. ... (borland.public.delphi.non-technical) - [Full-Disclosure] THREATCON HITTING DANGEROUS LEVELS!
... > This is the linux glibc bootstrap code behaviour. ... $ cat noargv2.c
... Consider the glibc-2.1.3 bug with LD_PRELOAD loading libraries, ... (Full-Disclosure) - Re: element addition
... award. ... it is a place-holder for an unspecified other command. ...
use of cat in this manner can keep the data flow ... strictly necessary, perhaps, but far
from useless. ... (comp.lang.perl.misc)