Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server.
From: QuestionGuy (screw@spam.bots)
Date: 01/18/03
- Next message: Michael Erskine: "Re: WLAN 802.11b Security FAQ"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- In reply to: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- Reply: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: QuestionGuy <screw@spam.bots> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:55:48 -0800
Tim Haynes wrote:
>
...
>
> You're looking for the GRSecurity patches. Specifically, the options for
> restricting certain groups from establishing client and/or server sockets:
>
> | zsh/scr, 10:38PM / # grep sock /etc/group
> | socknone:x:999
> | socknocli:x:998:gateway
> | socknosrv:x:997:apache
> |
> | CONFIG_GRKERNSEC_SOCKET_ALL_GID=998
> | CONFIG_GRKERNSEC_SOCKET_CLIENT_GID=997
> | CONFIG_GRKERNSEC_SOCKET_SERVER_GID=996
>
Thanks Tim. That's what I'm looking for. I installed this patch already,
but I likely didn't choose the correct options.
And in response to the other poster, for the record, I believe there's
plenty of reasons to limit this on a server. Saying "If you can't trust
users on your system, don't allow any" is a completely ridiculous. After
all, that's like saying if you shadow passwords and have it set for only
root to have read access on the shadow file, that if you can't trust
your users...
I have policies stating they can't run such services, but that's not
going to stop someone from doing that, now is it?! This prevents people
from being able to do a variety of things. I.e., the only way to stop a
DoS attack, is to make the server at the other end that is the source,
to not be able to be a source.
I can surely terminate an account that violates the TOS, but if they've
opened up a service to listen on a port to allow people a means to
perhaps circumvent something or to do something annoying or abusive,
it's sort of already too late. I just like having a means to limit
things. It's only one small step and certainly doesn't make the system
secure in itself, but it's one more thing that makes my job as an
administrator easier and it makes the system better protected.
Overall, I'm not worried that user's can do this, but I'd like for them
to not be able to. It's not a security issue if they can, anymore than
if a user has shell access, for example, I am aware of that, but that
while they have shell access, they can't do certain things they ought
not do. Not to confuse my inquiry with meaning I think this is a
solution to a problem, or to secure the system, but that it's just one
step of many to make things more controlled. Thanks again, Tim, I'll
check this and compile the kernel again with the proper options.
- Next message: Michael Erskine: "Re: WLAN 802.11b Security FAQ"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- In reply to: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- Reply: Tim Haynes: "Re: Deny local socket/port binding on server."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
