Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 GARFIELD 20/11/84; site garfield.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!garfield!andrew From: andrew@garfield.UUCP (Andrew Draskoy) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Acessing kmem, how about a driver? (really UN*X security) Message-ID: <2242@garfield.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 22:45:01 EST Article-I.D.: garfield.2242 Posted: Wed Dec 19 22:45:01 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 01:58:14 EST References: <813@druky.UUCP> <295@rlgvax.UUCP> Organization: Memorial U. of Nfld. C.S. Dept., St. John's Lines: 39 > From Guy Harris: > This can be achieved, in large part, by having "/dev/kmem" only writable > by the super-user, and readable by group "0", and by having all programs > that only need to read the data be set-GID 0 rather than set-UID 0. (While > we're on the topic of group "0", I've found that a lot of programs are set-UID > solely because they need to be able to *read* arbitrary files; would giving > "sub-super-user" privileges to gid 0, i.e., the ability to open arbitrary > files for reading, be useful?) Using set-gid instead of set-uid makes things more secure on 4.2bsd, but on other UN*Xes groups are incredibly insecure - especially group zero. Now that I've got you thinking about security (again), perhaps we should find a way to talk about it more openly. Since any attempt to set up a newsgroup or mailing list seems doomed to failure due to insecurity in the mail/uucp/news software, perhaps an alternate method can be used. I am thinking of something along the lines of a newsletter for people who prove that they have licenses, to be run by a "respectable" organisation which would hopefully not have too much trouble with an extra publication (Maybe USENIX would help out with something like this?). The nearest thing to a forum on UNIX security that I have heard of is the "secret" security meeting supposedly held at the S.L.C. Usenix meeting. I wasn't at S.L.C. so I don't know what happened there, but it hasn't helped the rest of us. I don't think such meetings would be the best way to handle the issue, since 1) Not everyone who needs to can go. 2) The Usenix meetings are only held bi-annually. 3) How do you decide who should be allowed into the meeting? It seems obvious from the recent discussions of security in unix-wizards that there is some interest in doing something about the situation. Does anyone have any comments? (Flames by mail, please.) -- Andrew Draskoy {akgua,allegra,ihnp4,utcsrgv}!garfield!andrew The opinions expressed above may not represent those of the author after he has had some sleep.