Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: First Linux Question

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Gore... I was enjoying this thread (even though it's a little over my head)... what are you doing here (other than the usual, of course)?

  2. #22
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Actually I was one of the first the answer 3 of his questions. Give me SOME credit

  3. #23
    Secure Attention Sequence (SAS), god this was just the first question, I suspect he's gonna hit on MAC,DAC, (DACLs), like (ACEs) access control entries, Auditing, Object Reuse, a performance monitor etc.. Maybe he's gonna want discretionary resource protection and auditing capability, A Reference Monitor (SRM) to keep things in check and run an access validation routine. Hell maybe displaying a Legal Notice Before Logon? Just off the top of my head. I can't wait to see the rest.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    Actually IR, my next question has only marginally to do with security or assurances.

    Gore, as for unices that I like... I like AIX and IRIX (an I miss XENIX) however neither of those systems really met my needs as a common workstation.

    cheers,

    catch

  5. #25
    Kwiep
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    924
    Can't the ctrl+alt+del thing be disabled? I guess that can be disallowed to be disabled with the security policy thing, so it goes right back in the "who's more powerfull administrator or root"-discussion. I thought I'd mention it anyway though.
    Double Dutch

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    the "who's more powerfull administrator or root"-discussion
    There is no discussion, the only people who don't know better have a total lack of understanding about how either UNIX or Windows works.

    Yes requiring control-alt-delete can be disabled... by ANY USER authorized to do so. Obviously if it isn't required the user will know something is fishy... as for the sequence itself:

    "What makes it secure is that the OS traps this key sequence in a way that makes it impossible for anything not in the Trusted Computing Base to handle it."
    http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/...24/359850.aspx

    However... consider the Linux documentation refers to the C2 level even though no such requirement exists there and that they don't know why it doesn't meet C2 requirements (because nne exist?) and a two second glance at the B2 trusted path requirement would tell you why Linux fails to meet the criteria lets me know that there is mucho misunderstanding about security requirements i the Linux camp. This along wih things like how Windows only gets evaluated with epoxied floppy drives and no networking and in a single, totally unusable configuration... utter rubbish and to think this yo have to have very poor understanding of the evaluation criteria... or to think that SUSE at EAL4+ is more secure than Windows 2000 at EAL4... LOOK AT THE PP!

    To be perfectly honest, I don't need it to meet B2 reuirements... I just need something that is universally accepted. For example, if I have two choice:

    1. A really crappy but offically supported security solution by IBM/Microsoft/etc
    2. A really brilliant but obscure solution from some college kid

    If I go with 1, and it fails horribly... I can say "Well, IBM/Microsoft/etc let us down." if I go with 2 and it fails i am left with "Well, I took a gamble, I lost... I'll have my letter of resigantion on your desk by tomorrow morning."

    I can't say it enough, security is all about assurance.

    cheers,

    catch

  7. #27
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,188
    Hmmm, probably a silly question, but any opinions on how Linspire might fit in?

    http://lwn.net/Articles/128869/

    I know it is not particularly secure "out of the box" but it might be a better shot at catch's requirement for a desktop solution?


  8. #28
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Originally posted here by catch
    Actually IR, my next question has only marginally to do with security or assurances.

    Gore, as for unices that I like... I like AIX and IRIX (an I miss XENIX) however neither of those systems really met my needs as a common workstation.

    cheers,

    catch
    No Solaris or like trusted?

    Never got to try AIX or IRIX

    XENIX I know about and have a decent understanding of how it came to be. Hell I even have a scanned image of an old ad from Micorosft for it.

  9. #29
    While searching for a final out for linux, my search led me into the depths of the internet, to Shanghai. A few translated pages later I find the best of the best the linux camp elders have to offer.

    You're gonna roll when you read this!

    They first start talking about (SAS), which is NT-TFM terminology for a trusted path. Then they go into what linux's power has to offer.
    And will list the security function - credible way the constitution part, but under linux, also has the similar pressed key sequence is serviceable.

    Under the Linux environment security pays attention key - SAK [ Secure Attention Key ], this SAK is one group of keys, under our common X86 platform, it is " alt+sysrq+k ", but under SPARC, SAK is " alt+STOP+k ", SAK tacitly approves does not open, needs to use echo " 1 " > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq this order to activate, certainly, you also may interpolate it register in the script, like this needed not each time to trouble. Friend has the interest which to the SAK realization, may refers linux/drivers/char/sysrq.c and linux/drivers/char/tty_io.c::doc_sak
    The SAK sequence key actually is is called makes in " magic sysrq key " one group, " magic sysrq key " also has some special keys, same with SAK, they all are use " alt + sysrq +..." 袷 sword □... May trade for certain special letter for instance " i ", in " MAGIC SYSRQ KEY DOCUMENTATION v1.32 " in the handbook, the behavior which " alt + sysrq +i " represents is " Send a SIGKILL to all processes, except for init. " The meaning is to transmits one kill signal besides init all advancements; Now we have a look in " MAGIC SYSRQ KEY DOCUMENTATION v1.32 " in the handbook to the " alt + sysrq +k " explanation:

    " sa ' K ' (Secure Access Key) is usefull when you want to be
    sure there are no trojan program is running at console and
    which could grab your password when you would try to login.
    It will kill all programs on given console and thus
    letting you make sure that the login prompt you see is
    actually the one from init, not some trojan program. "

    This section of speech is precisely the SAK function portrayal: SAK to you determines in lands when has not attempted to steal the secret cipher the Trojan horse procedure movement in the current control bench, it can kill in the current control bench the completely application procedure, believes firmly by 此令 you sees lands the picture comes from init, but non- wooden horse procedure. When you press down this group of key, also was initiates this specific event, then deferred to the design the flow, the system fell into the core condition, by now you will be allowed directly with the essence communication, in other words, to appear in you " should " be guarantee exchange if not genuine really land the prompt information, why was should? Our 下文 analysis: -> etc...etc.................................

    ..................But was destroys goal machine TCB, with GINA wooden horse similar......Therefore this still could not be one loophole, analyzed from the TCB concept angle



    http://edu.chinaz.com/Get/Server/Ser...8021689970.asp
    Translate through English --> Chinese Beta google.

    Holy ****! What is this, have they thrown together some type of slap jaw TFM? MAGIC SYSRQ KEY DOCUMENTATION Maybe this is the super special ultra lucky super magical TFM.

    All we need to do is use the super lucky k switch.....duh!
    Code:
     k
    k - Secure Access Key (SAK) Kills all programs on the current virtual
    console. NOTE: See important comments below in SAK section.

    If Secure Xenix had several hundred TFM pages, how many will this have?



  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    No Solaris or like trusted?
    I don't really care for Solaris and Trusted Solaris is an awful TOS. Trusted Solaris is better than normal Solaris, but it so heavily flies in the face of UNIX philosophy that neither I nor most people would ever conisder it UNIX (unless it was somehow conveiniant to win an argument).

    NT Security is a direct decendant of Secure XENIX and it followed the sandard MS ideology of never breaking appliction support in any situation other than a last resort.

    !ir, that document hurts my head.
    IMPORTANT:In its true form it is not a true SAK like the one in :IMPORTANT
    IMPORTANT:c2 compliant systems, and it should be mistook as such. :IMPORTANT
    Is still what I find entertaining... it does seem that Linux users do exactly that... ignore the standards, but mistake things for being compliant.

    cheers,

    catch

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •