|
|
ARCHIVE: Rutgers 'Security List' (incl. misc.security) - Archives (1990)
DOCUMENT: Rutgers 'Security List' for September 1990 (9 messages, 5571 bytes)
SOURCE: http://securitydigest.org/exec/display?f=rutgers/archive/1990/09.txt&t=text/plain
NOTICE: securitydigest.org recognises the rights of all third-party works.
START OF DOCUMENT
-----------[000000][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- From: bruno%[email protected] (Bruce W. Mohler) 8-SEP-1990 5:44:35 To: [email protected]
We have an ethernetted environment of many UNIX boxes all running a fairly old application. The users of the application do *not* rlogin to different machines; they just log onto the box over a LAN, then they log off when they're done (only the people who provide support use rlogin). The only use of client server programs is for locally developed systems to fix problems in the application. The application was implemented with many group ids (which are going away -> towards individual user ids). As we're proceeding in this direction, we're thinking about a password server running as a client/server over the ethernet (implemented so that the users are unaware that there's a password server or anything magical). I've read most of the Kerberos documents and while I'm amazed, it seems like overkill for our environment (none of the users even know what a program is let alone a client/server). Does anything exist like a password server? Something simpler than Kerberos doing login authentication? Suggestions welcome! Pointers to articles or research welcome! Thoughts and inspirations equally welcome! Thanks, in advance. Bruce
-----------[000001][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala) 10-SEP-1990 8:46:40 To: [email protected]
I have put some security articles I have for anonymous ftp in nic.funet.fi [128.214.6.100] directory pub/doc/security. //Jyrki
-----------[000002][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] (Dan Boyd) 10-SEP-1990 9:18:28 To: [email protected]
In 'The Cuckoo's Egg', the hacker was using an account belonging to someone who wasn't around any more. Password expiration doesn't really protect against this. Daniel F. Boyd | Teriyaki walking sticks! Student Consultant, SUNY-Binghamton | Hit those fish over the head with [email protected] | these, and if they get away, | you just eat the sticks!
-----------[000003][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] (The Polymath) 10-SEP-1990 9:43:03 To: [email protected]
Use the hacksaw. If it's a cheap Master lock you should be able to cut
through it in under five minutes.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: [email protected])
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp(+)TTI Illegitimis non
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Carborundum
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
-----------[000004][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] 11-SEP-1990 5:48:48 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Ftp to athena-dist.mit.edu, and look in the pub/kerberos directory. There's also a mailing list ([email protected] will add you), which is gatewayed to a newsgroup. For a slight dissenting perspective, you may want to retrieve a draft of a paper by myself and Mike Merritt on the limitations of Kerberos. It's dist/kerblimit.ps on inet.att.com. --Steve Bellovin
-----------[000005][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 12:24:57 PDT From: [email protected] (Black Death) 11-SEP-1990 6:05:10, [email protected] (Black Death) To: [email protected], [email protected]
Yes, but if the users choose good passwords, there won't be much chance of anyone getting in at all. One good method is using a variety of upper & lower case (ie pAsSwOrD) on UNIXs that will alow you to do that. Another system which would make it nearly impossible to hack (beleive me, I know) would be to take two words, combine them together and add a two-digit number to the end (ie RUNWALK23)..If password security is not enough for your system you may wish to invest in a filter device, which will dramaticly reduce the numbe of people who even make it to the "password:" prompt. It is important, however, that even when you get one of these, you must still use good passwords. That should drasticly reduce the amount of unwanted visitors on your system.
-----------[000006][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] (Gene Spafford) 11-SEP-1990 6:29:29 To: [email protected]
I just received a copy of the book "Rogue Programs: Viruses, Worms,
and Trojan Horses," edited by Lance J. Hoffman. The book is published
by Van Nostrand Reinhold, copyright 1990, ISBN 0-442-00454-0. The
publisher's suggested list price is $32.95, in softcover.
This book is a collection of 27 articles and book excerpts about
"vandalware" on computer systems. Contributors include Len Adleman,
Anne Branscomb, David Chess, Fred Cohen, George Davida, David
Ferbrache, Michael Gemignani, Harold Joseph Highland, me (!), Ken
Thompson, Steve White, and many others. The table of contents lists
the following parts: Overview of Rogue Programs, Social and Legal
Issues and Effects, Rogue Programs and Personal Computers, Rogue
Programs and Networks, and Emerging Theory of Computer Viruses.
Perhaps I'm somewhat biased because I'm the author or co-author of 3
of the 27 contributions. However, I believe this is the most
comprehensive collection on the topic currently available. It
contains case studies, theoretical analyses, legal opinions, and
step-by-step technical information. The book is valuable as both a
technical reference and as a textbook around which a course can be
organized. I'm sure it is going to become one of the 2 or 3 standard
references in the field (the forthcoming book from ACM Press edited by
Peter Denning will probably be the other).
If you are interested in some of the issues involving viruses, worms
and vandalware, you really should get a copy of this book and check it
out.
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: [email protected] uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
-----------[000007][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Sep 90 07:55:00 GMT From: [email protected] (__Robby__) To: misc.security Subject: Burglar Alarms -- Beware of cheap parts
A little ways back I posed the question to the net as to what may cause spuratic, seemingrandom triggers of an armed alarm on a still day, the alarm being compmosed of two simple loops with only two contact switches and the rest vibration sensors. The responses were quite helpful in pinpointing the problem; it was suggested that resistance was accumulating in the circuit perhaps due to a staple through a wire or a bad switcleading to the eventual threshhold exceedance. Well, after two years with this problem, I narrowed the problem down to a defect inherant in the part! I don't have the catelog no. handy, but a phone conversation with Tandy's engineers in Texas confirmed that the silver mixture used in the contacts of the switch oxidize extremely rapidly. His solution was to either file the contacts every 3-5 months with emery cloth, spray them with a conducting oil (only a temporary solution) or wait till they come up with a replacement part for it (and we all know how long THAT can take) *sigh*. Isn't it comforting to know that defective parts that people rely on for safety and protection remain on the shelves going unnoticed by the consumer AND the dealers? (detect sarcasm) Does anyone know of any good manufactures of vibration-type switches?? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-----------[000008][next][prev][last][first]---------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] (*Hobbit*) 2-OCT-1990 1:58:36 To: [email protected]
I have been very busy moving my entire life and stuff to Boston, and have had utterly *no* time to deal with the list for the last few weeks. I now intend to shovel out all the back messages, but I wanted to ping the readership at large first and get a few opinions about the relative worth of keeping this list going. I have often toyed with the idea of just taking it down completely. I seem to be perpetually too busy to get things out on what you'd call a timely basis. More importantly, most of the recent submissions seem to either be about things that have been discussed in the past, or are questions about very specific and narrow fields of interest that often serve to only confuse the readers who don't know anything about it. Many questions could be answered by digging around through the archives, which are all still online from the lists's inception. Over the years a fairly useful body of knowledge has been captured there, and it's been my suspicion that we've just sort of reached our horizon of getting new knowledge into there. I could be quite wrong about this since new security topics are always coming out, but I see definite repeating patterns here. The other thing is that there is now this alt.security newsgroup. This is a completely unmoderated instant-turnaround group, which sort of flies in the face of this list's original philosophy. Any clown could send in "gee, I found this really cute hole under Buglix 5.2 and here's how to reproduce it", raising a certain flame war as well as possible liability issues or at least the wrath of local system folks. Moderation, it was hoped way back when, was one way to avoid this sort of thing. I even took pains to run the list in such a way that someone couldn't just "VRFY security-outbound" or some such and obtain the distribution list for themselves. Of course anyone could send this sort of message to just about any group, so the question here is: Just what does a moderated list do for people? Should it remain moderated? I have noticed that the signal-to-noise ratio on alt.security is at the typically low Usenet-like level. I do reject a good proportion of mangled, irrelevant, stupid, or redundant messages, but being such a filter is a rather tedious job even with a multitude of tools at one's disposal. So I solicit opinions from the readership. Should the security list become an unmoderated reflector? Should it just shrivel under the onslaught of alt.security and just vanish, leaving only its archives? Should the task [and I don't use the word lightly] of moderation pass on to someone else with more time to do it? I do wish I had the time to do as thorough a job as, say, PGN with RISKS; but with new locations and new jobs and scads of loose ends to wrap up such is not to be the case. Suggestions and such will be accepted at my address, security, security- request, etc; it all points to my mailbox anyway. _H*
END OF DOCUMENT
| ISSN 1742-948X 01 (Online) | 2005/03/01 | Copyright 2002-2008 securitydigest.org. All rights reserved. |