[alt.unix.wizards] Really serious security hole in Microport Unix

bill@franklin.com (Bill) (02/14/91)

[I've crossposted this widely because there should be a lot of
people who care about this; however, I've directed followups to

Interactive's Unix isn't the only one with a really serious
security hole. Microport 3.0e, and possibly others from
Microport, has an equally awful hole and it is unfixable without
kernel hacking. Microport knows about it since I told them about
it; I don't know what, if anything, they are going to do about it.

If anyone out there wants information on this bug, I will send it
to you. Also, I have created a replacement for the offending
kernel module of 3.0e and can send that. However, I will only
send these to root@yoursite and only if I think that the path to
your site is reasonably secure. If you are at the end of an
insecure (in my opinion, and I won't change it) path and you still
want this information, I will arrange a direct uucp connection to
send it. If that won't work, I'll try to arrange something.

I won't immediately describe the bug on the net in order to give
admins a chance to fix their systems before the crackers get a
whack at it. I can't even describe the general area that this bug
compromises without making it too easy to trigger it.

In a few weeks, after the expected deluge of "what *is* that bug"
messages, I will post the informational message I'm sending out.


Consider said various vicious and incendiary comments about brain
dead programmers and inadequate QA. These bugs should *never*
have made it out the door and, having done so, they should never
have lasted as long as they have. Of course, we can't blame the
guys at Interactive and Microport too much; they have had the
example (and largely uncomment code) of those guys who gave us
the still unfixed (or so I hear) System V inode bug.