First Linux Question

One more and I'll let it go.........

http://www.dwheeler.com/dwheeler.html
http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-progr...WTO/index.html

"I give this book away in the hope that future software developers won't repeat past mistakes, resulting in more secure systems.


7.12. Set up a Trusted Path
Unfortunately, at the time of this writing SAK is immature and not well-supported by Linux distributions. Another approach for implementing a trusted path locally is to control a separate display that only the login program can perform. For example, if only trusted programs could modify the keyboard lights (the LEDs showing Num Lock, Caps Lock, and Scroll Lock), then a login program could display a running pattern to indicate that it's the real login program. Unfortunately, since in current Linux normal users can change the LEDs, the LEDs can't currently be used to confirm a trusted path. Sadly, the problem is much worse for network applications........." time of writing 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 by David A. Wheeler


And just for kicks, I reached for an Oreilly book on my bookshelf, it's called practical Unix and Internet security 2nd edition. I came to a chapter called defending your accounts --> protecting the root account.p243-247. They don't put much faith in their trusted channels either ,nor the TCB for that matter.

One thing really gives Linux's trusted path the death knell... even current implementations that people have argued to be a close proxy to a true trusted path have essentially no functionality. The kill everything and drop you to init... while marginally useful, a trusted path is more than just about logging in... what if you wish perform other tasks in need of high(er) assurances? Like changing your password or process management?

I will, as iIsaid before chalk this one up to Linux being incapable. On to the next question! (that I'll prolly post tomorrow cause I literally have like 600 pages I need to get through by tomorrow morning... as it is I am gonna miss [adult swim])

cheers,

catch

One last paranoid rant from rcgreen(who invented paranoia)

You still, profoundly, don't get it. After contemplating this for a while, I've
come to the conclusion that the linux kernel people wouldn't want to implement
the feature you want here. There's a wide philosophical gulf between you and them.
Once again, you turn security on its head, and things are the opposite of what they
mean.

To have a keypress that is secret and beyond the control or comprehension of the
competent user, administrator or programmer is, to you, secure,
While an empowered user is a threat. Did you think about Ken Thompson's
conclusion? No code is trustworthy unless you deem it trustworthy.

You seem to think that, if the person who wrote the windows kernel tells
you that this keypress is secure, then it is secure, and if the author
of the linux kernel refuses to hide this knowledge from you, then his kernel
lacks "assurance"

You need to stop messing with PCs and get a mainframe.
:cool:

rcgreen, you make a very good point, and I want to agree with you that catch "doesn't get it".
However, his need is ... Somewhat.. Genuine.
I do believe that the issue lies in the estimation of the risk, as well as in the difference of philosophy.
I don't have enough knowledge to argue this, but here's my point.
Catch is right : what he's asking for doesn't exist in Linux.
Catch is wrong : he's thinking about it in Windows terms; the Linux question/answer is different, due to fundamental differences.

There was clearly no (SFUG) security features user's guide. So even if you used linux's immature "trusted" path, where would the admin start? Printout bits and pieces of unverified instructions from google? Hah, not in my mature environment. Also, it can be clearly manipulated in a malicious way. Kind of sounds shady for something that's trusted.

RC, you're going to accept trusted system philosophy, you will learn by the numbers, I will teach you. Resistance is futile. ;)

No, the linux camp is just figuring out how hard it really is to retrofit security into an OS after its been designed. It's apparent that they're scrambling for augmented BS..... all of which are dubitable. Why are they desperately trying to find these augments? Because their system is being held against the yardsticks of the industry. Because their system wasn't designed for this. Because they tried reinventing a wheel that was made in the 70's-80's. Because they chose not to take a leaf from these books that clearly define the principles of correctness. I won't get into the rainbows RBAC and DBAC... inside joke. Buhahahahaha You can either go with the grain, or against the grain when designing an OS. They went against it.

Besides he said AIX, IRIX and XENIX don't meet his needs as a common workstation. I have a little to say about those too. Only a few offer it and they're only augmented with these mechanisms! Oh, hell, no.....run a special trusted shell......manual TCB marking exec ()....when using the trusted path mechanism, they have to be sure to limit superuser logins to only the associated terminals....(why should I even have to worry about that?)....require reconfiguring my kernel just to insert the correct terminal code..... shits getting manipulated at all domain levels. But they do say consult the vendor guides. I guess that's where my 80k went (SFUG's). :)

Jesus_H_Christ! Can't I just walk up to a terminal and safely execute some primitive OS functions? It's not rocket science, the TCB is part of the OS on which my trust in the ssecurity of the whole system depends. It's your pillar of strength. Domains: Kernel-->OS-->User... the ignant get the game twisted.

It's over.... either you have the goods or you don't. Once the threads of fate have tangled, it cannot be undone. Critical blunders and miscalculations in the design were made long ago.

So... are we talking alongside eachother or are we actually responding to one another.

!mitationRust, please take this in a fun way, but I'm gonne have to say it. My english teacher would beat you up with a lead pipe if I gave him/her some of the replies in here. Even if they're grammatically correct (I guess they are), some are just exhausting to read. And I'm not even talking about the technical aspects or the abrievations.

I agree with !im, but he skipped a comment made by RC that really stood out to me:

Quote:

---

a keypress that is secret and beyond the control or comprehension of the competent user, administrator or programmer

---

Secret and incomprehensible... I think you wanted to post this in the "What drugs have you done?" thread.

cheers,

catch

Guys, lets not let this thread degenerate.

Catch,
Post the second question, please.............I think i've learnt more through reading and researching this thread than anything else on this board for along time.

Quote:

---

I think you wanted to post this in the "What drugs have you done?" thread.

---

Been there, done that. Next Question!
:cool:

Imitationrust wrote :
Because their system wasn't designed for this.

Damn straight!
I would never use Linux as a server. But I said that already. a *BSD or a *nix, which are more focused on security, alright. But Linux was not designed with security in mind. No OS is perfect, and the best you can ask from an OS is that it fulfill the niche for which it was designed.

Unix wasn't designed to be a server either. It was designed to play a game Ken liked on a PDP system and they wrote a text processing tool so it could be used by Bell Labs for something other than that game. You sure like saying BSD a lot. I can tell you from experience, not only do I feel that BSD and Linux only are different in philosophical terms, but the BSD community agrees.

You may want to check out sections of "The Complete Free BSD" towards the begining of the book, and "Free BSD Unleashed 2nd edition" which has simnilar info. Linux isn't less stable or less server ready, but it is however more desktop ready.

Lol besides the Kernel and a few tools, I'd like to hear you name more than 12 differences between Free BSD and Slackware from a user perspective. They are almost twins, and me and the rest of the Free BSD community, love Slackware.

I should find the mails from Free BSD where they were saying "We know Slackware is good, and we are cool with you using the Free BSD docs project to port those to Slackware". I know all this because I was the first person on the team to start doing so.

You sure like saying BSD a lot. I can tell you from experience, not only do I feel that BSD and Linux only are different in philosophical terms, but the BSD community agrees.

And the rest is blah blah (it's all true, but it's blah blah).

I agree, I agree, and I agree. *BSD and Linux are two completely different things. I'm not saying Linux is less stable or less server ready; I'm just saying it's not what I would consider as a proper OS for a server. What was that saying ... "Linux is for those who hate Windows, *nix is for those who love Unix" or something similar.

From a user perspective, I can't name 12 differences between S/W and FBSD, because as you said, it's pretty damn close!

On the other hand, I didn't know that *nix wasn't designed to be a server in the first place. So much for me. ;-) Thanks for the tidbit of knowledge.

So, whose war are you fighting? You're not fighting against me, and you're not fighting with me...

I don't think of war, it's not right. (Unless it's an elitist war where you're telling Windows ME users they suck) I was simply pointing out your post SEEMED to say you thought that way, I didn't say you really did. Unix has been around a long time, and so has BSD, hell, BSD created TCP/IP AND Vi.

Without it we wouldn't be here. Some people fight over RV5 VS BSD, that's stupid they both are useful. Slackware follows a more Unix approach to Linux and BSD even releases and helps out Slackware. My copy of Slackware essentials, is from BSDi, as is "The Complete Free BSD" and on the Slackware page, BSd is marked as a supporter of Slackware.

I know quite a few people from the BSD group, good guys and none of them fight about Linux. Except for Gentoo BSD, which they aren't sure of. As I said the difference is more taste than tech. pkg_add -r PWNS most package manegement systems, and YAST PWNS all on usefullness.

I am frustrated. I want to give you positive antipoints but I'm at -12 because some people hated a post I made and gave it full negative criticism. *sigh*.
Anyway - yes, yes, and yes.
I agree with you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Trevoke
Imitationrust wrote :
Because their system wasn't designed for this.

Damn straight!
I would never use Linux as a server. But I said that already. a *BSD or a *nix, which are more focused on security, alright. But Linux was not designed with security in mind.

---

I think you're looking to a "higher power" here, another dead end ;) Ahh, I guess sh!t does roll down hill.


" Practical UNIX & Internet Security preface pg xv
...UNIX was not designed with military-level security in mind.....But the truth is, UNIX really hasn't become significantly more secure with its increase in popularity. That's because fundamental flaws still remain in the interaction of the operating system's design and its uses. The UNIX superuser remains a single point of attack: any intruder or insider who can become the UNIX superuser can take over the system, booby-trap its programs, and hold the computer's users hostage-sometimes even without their knowledge...."

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Trevoke

No OS is perfect, and the best you can ask from an OS is that it fulfill the niche for which it was designed.

---

Perfect, such a broad term. There are several systems many generations old, which are so validated; they're retiring without ever needing a patch. You know, I could throw out some acronyms here, but you'd be googling all day if I did. ;) Not that you'd even care one whit.

I have the odd feeling that you're calling me stupid, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. Certainly, it couldn't be the words you used... :)
By all means, do throw the acronyms. I am extremely ignorant of everything that came before Windows 95 (I would say Windows 3.1, but I was 9 at the time so I'm ignorant of that period too because I didn't care), and would love an occasion to learn.

You also make me realize an error in my thoughts, so I would like to thank you for that -- "designed with security in mind" was not something I was thinking about. I need to now revise my arguments...

Still, I don't see how my sentence is invalidated. You're right, it's a very broad definition, which doesn't really invalidate many OS, if any. If you know a better way to word it, be my guest.

I'm also quite aware of root being a "security flaw"; it's part of the design, innit? If it turns out, after all, that Windows has the potential of being more secure than a whole slew of *nix derivatives, I'll recognize my mistakes (although I will probably bitch and moan quite a lot!) and learn.

Quote:

---

If it turns out, after all, that Windows has the potential of being more secure than a whole slew of *nix derivatives, I'll recognize my mistakes (although I will probably bitch and moan quite a lot!) and learn.

---

See this is where things get complicated... What is UNIX? What is Linux? What are the defining factors? Whenever a debate of security or functionality comes up, the pro-UNIX/Linux side claims every secerutiy benefit every put down for those systems as if they all existed or could exist in that system... never acknowledging the fact that such a system (even with a few of those changes) would function in a fundementally different manner than traditional UNIX/Linux.

For example, the traditional definition of UNIX has long been a multi-tasking, multi-user system based around a monolithic kernel with a philisophy of a superuser, tri-aspect permission bits, and a collection of small, simple tools that may be piped together for greater functionality.

Now clearly emacs is a violation of this philosophy... so does running emacs make the system no longer UNIX? Clearly such a system would still be UNIX, so gross philosophical violations are allowed. What about a UNIX system run in single-user mode? Again it is still UNIX. It must be the system calls... which explains why every UNIX/Linux has the same system calls... oh wait they don't. Oh, I know... POSIX compliance! Hmm so I guess the only true UNIX is AIX and the Windows POSIX subsystem is also UNIX! That can't be right... So what the hell is UNIX/Linux?!? And when does something stop being UNIX/Linux? (Linux is every harder to define, what with random research projects being added to the production kernel cause the NSA is "cool".)

What I will tell you is this: If we define UNIX as a multi-tasking, multi-user, monolithic kernel operating system that uses a superuser, simple tri-aspect permission bits, controlled partitions, and *shiver* jail (which was never intended as a security tool) as it's security framework... I can say that without hesitation the Windows NT line is more secure. If you turn UNIX/Linux on its head and add a slew of crap... then the waters get murkey... I do know this: the ONLY UNIX to ever be retrofitted to an acceptable multi-level secure configuration (B2) was Secure and later Trusted XENIX... need I remind you oh who built XENIX? Need I remind you of what system's security NT is based off of?

cheers,

catch

SCO Built xenix ;) Microsoft sold it ;)

Would reply more but I'm watching Monsterfest on AMC.

All day horror movies are way cooler than this lol.

Nope... you're turned around.
Microsoft licensed the UNIX code from AT&T and released XENIX in 1980. Microsoft, however did not sell directly to end users, instead opting to go through OEMs like SCO (who released SCO XENIX in 1983). Eventually SCO purchased XENIX outright.
cheers,

catch

Oh **** how did I screw that up