Re: [fw-wiz] Securing a Linux Firewall

From: BORBELY Zoltan (bozo@andrews.hu)
Date: 07/24/02 

From: BORBELY Zoltan <bozo@andrews.hu>
To: Carson Gaspar <carson@taltos.org>
Date: Wed Jul 24 08:30:19 2002

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:13:52AM -0400, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> --On Tuesday, July 23, 2002 4:01 PM -0600 John McDermott <jjm@jkintl.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This, I believe, presumes that you are *100% sure* that the given binary
> > can grant no additional privs. I am seldom that sure about software.
>
> If it is not setuid, and not setgid, it _can't_ grant you extra privs
> (ignoring funky capability ACLs and the like).
>
> > Then you should care even more. Why leave something around that cen be
> > exploited even if you personally don't know how to use it in an attack?
> > I prefer to err on the side of caution and remove anything not needed.
>
> If it's not running as a daemon, and grants no additional privs, how can it
> possibly be "exploited"?

It can be a library which is imported by one of the running programs or
daemons. It can be a simple program which is executed by one of the
programs. Are you sure you know all of the dependencies of the running
programs? If you put only the required binaries you can be sure.

> > I may be confused, but to me that sounds like "make a list of the few
> > programs the firewall needs and only put those on the jumpstart CD". This
> > means removing all unused packages from the system before creating the
> > "jumpstart"-like CD.
>
> No. "The few programs the firewall needs" is significantly larger
> (especially under Solaris) than "The few setuid/setgid programs the
> firewall needs". I assert that the first set is very large, and is very
> difficult to maintain as the OS changes. You are free to disagree with my
> assertion.

This is an important thing. How can you be sure the next version of the OS
won't execute a new binary of won't be linked to a new shared library?
If you install only the minimum you can be sure.

> But you _don't_ _have_ _to_ _audit_ _everything_. Things that don't run at
> boot, and grant no additional privs, are just noise. They are inert, and
> there is no earthly reason to care about them. This is the core premise of
> my approach. All I have to audit are about 5 binaries, and a (sadly much
> larger) list of shared objects that they depend upon.

See above.

Bye,
Zoltan BORBELY

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [fw-wiz] Securing a Linux Firewall
    ... If it is not setuid, and not setgid, it _can't_ grant you extra privs ... > programs the firewall needs and only put those on the jumpstart CD". ...
    (Firewall-Wizards)
  • Re: Load Data InFile fails
    ... > different databases before root issues the grant. ... privs = privileges. ... You are doing a grant all which grants every single privilege to ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] User bypass privs for Mysql??
    ... I did not have the grant priv, I had select, insert on mysql db. ... [Full-Disclosure] User bypass privs for Mysql?? ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: [Full-Disclosure] User bypass privs for Mysql??
    ... > I did not have the grant priv, I had select, insert on mysql db. ... > from N to Y and then you instantly had all privs? ... > | Not having any grant permissions. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)