Re: Tightening up security for quarantine script
From: Pierre Dufresne (pierre.dufresne_at_messf.gouv.qc.ca)
Date: 02/06/04
- Previous message: Sarbjit Singh Gill: "RE: Tightening up security for quarantine script"
- Maybe in reply to: Pierre Dufresne: "Tightening up security for quarantine script"
- Next in thread: Watson, Michael: "RE: Tightening up security for quarantine script"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 6 Feb 2004 15:27:11 -0000 To: focus-ms@securityfocus.com('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) In-Reply-To: <20040205150521.21276.qmail@www.securityfocus.com>
Thank you all for your comments.
Alan Melia suggested to use a compiled program instead of a script. This is exactly what I thought of at first because it would somehow hide the return code and make it less easy for someone to modify. Since I am not trying to make this completely secure, this solution seemed acceptable.
I may be wrong here because I just started experimenting with the quarantine feature but the connection profile created with CMAK places the script or program in a specified directory. I think that overwriting it with a simple script with the same name would do the trick (if someone can somehow obtain the return codes).
In the end, I think there is no simple solution to this. Usually, security by obscurity is not really a solution, but in this case it provides a satisfactory slightly higher level of security (at least for our environment).
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message: Sarbjit Singh Gill: "RE: Tightening up security for quarantine script"
- Maybe in reply to: Pierre Dufresne: "Tightening up security for quarantine script"
- Next in thread: Watson, Michael: "RE: Tightening up security for quarantine script"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|