Re: suid bit files + securing FreeBSD (new program: LockDown)
From: twig les (twigles_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT) To: Socketd <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
I really like the sound of having a shell script to run and lock
down systems right after install (or makeworld upgrade); I was
considering hacking something together myself with my altogether
mediocre scripting skills. Might I suggest that it have a conf
file that sets up a script that we can simply scp to another box
and run without having to have a conf file on that box? Also
can we email you privately with "feature requests" like setting
If you run with this I hope you'll post the script somewhere and
tell us so we can tinker with it until it makes it to the ports
or whatever. It makes more sense than me just making a
checklist and following it every time.
--- Socketd <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:53:17 -0500
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I might be willing to tinker with a lockdown type shell
> script to
> > handle that part of it.
> > Another thing: the script/program/process/whatever could
> send an email
> > to root with a list of the files it found which had improper
> > List the ones without the suid/sgid bit which were changed,
> and list
> > the ones with them which were changed. That would cover the
> > possibility of a port being installed and having him forget
> to add it
> > into the list - this would serve as a reminder to actually
> stick it
> > in.
> Yes, if LockDown finds suid/gid files not listed in the conf
> file, the
> admin should get a message/mail.
> > Also: perhaps those found with the bits set which were not
> listed as
> > being allowed could be moved into an obscure subdirectory,
> sort of the
> > way the PC virus protection programs do. Not only would it
> not have
> > the bits set, but it would be gone. Then the next time the
> > runs, if it finds the program out there again, it might
> assume an
> > attack of some type and send warning emails stating that is
> the case.
> > And: Since this is a security thing, perhaps we could have a
> > daemon which checks the conf file and program periodically,
> > to root when/if either changes. If the conf file changes,
> then an
> > email might be okay. If the program changes, depending upon
> > security setting, you might just send an email and you might
> shut down
> > the network interfaces or some such thing.
> > Perhaps a makefile for the port could update the system so
> if you
> > installed a new version then this panic attack wouldn't
> > And, optionally, you could let the new unauthorized version
> sit for a
> > short while, then replace it with the last known good
> version and run
> > it. Thus if someone hacked the system and noticed the
> lockdown program
> > and made changes to the conf file, root would be notified of
> the conf
> > file change by the daemon. But then if they wanted to hack
> > lockfile script itself, then root would get a message
> showing the
> > diffs and, say, 5 minutes later, the last known good version
> would be
> > put back and run - with, perhaps, the last known good
> version of the
> > conf file being used as well. That would lock out the hacker
> and he
> > wouldn't even know why or how - and would assume the
> sysadmin caught
> > him. Make sense?
> > Just some ramblings that you might think about...
> Well again I have to say that LockDown was not meant to be an
> IDS. If
> you want a program to monitor suid files, tripwire is good.
> Anyway, having a daemons keeping an eye on the system is a
> good idea,
> but an attacker with root powers could just kill the process
> and install
> a rootkit. If you want a program to detect rootkits we have
> email@example.com mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Emo is what happens when the glee club goes punk.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"