Telnet Vulnerability - Solaris

This is a discussion on Telnet Vulnerability - Solaris ; "Rich Teer" wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.4.64.0702171637330.15211@marrakesh.. . > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Canuck57 wrote: > >> But try "telnet -l"-fsys" " on a system with the >> CONSOLE root access denied. > > OK: > > rich@marrakesh5503# telnet -l ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Telnet Vulnerability

  1. Re: Telnet Vulnerability


    "Rich Teer" wrote in message
    news:Pine.SOL.4.64.0702171637330.15211@marrakesh.. .
    > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    >> But try "telnet -l"-fsys" " on a system with the
    >> CONSOLE root access denied.

    >
    > OK:
    >
    > rich@marrakesh5503# telnet -l "-fsys" excalibur
    > Trying 192.168.0.3...
    > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
    >
    > [You didn't think I'd be daft enough have telnet enabled, even
    > on my home network, did you? :-)]


    Not at all. When I first saw it I couldn't test it ether because like many,
    routinely pkgrm the daemon on all my servers. I got permission and I used
    another environment of machines to test/audit it. Their admins thought they
    OK because of the CONSOLE part...

    My point being that even if the CONSOLE is set to deny root over the net,
    sys, adm and others work just fine if the telnetd is enabled and unpatched,
    which is the default. With adm for example, you can clear the wtmpx on the
    way out.



  2. Re: Telnet Vulnerability

    On 14 Feb., 22:57, Huge wrote:
    > On 2007-02-13, brian wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Who usestelnet?

    >
    >
    >
    > Stupid, lazy, incompetent sysadmins who think their Unix security
    > department is a pointless nuisance.
    >
    >

    >
    > --
    > Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
    > who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
    > or that problem will never be solved by science.
    > [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]



    You all are so funny and clever.
    This thread looks like a playschool.
    It's true that telnet shouldn't be used but this binary still
    available in Solaris and before someone might have the experience
    using unix for a couple of years, he probably don't know for what
    reasons he shouldn't use it.
    This thread is readable by many people, beginners and experienced
    admins!
    I don't use telnet either - I use ssh instead but I'm sure that we all
    will be surprised by the next ssh bug.
    Anyway, this is a real good idea: "[email me at huge {at} huge (dot)
    org uk]"


  3. Re: Telnet Vulnerability

    On 2007-02-19, ramiro.santosp@googlemail.com wrote:
    > On 14 Feb., 22:57, Huge wrote:
    >> On 2007-02-13, brian wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Who usestelnet?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Stupid, lazy, incompetent sysadmins who think their Unix security
    >> department is a pointless nuisance.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > You all are so funny and clever.
    > This thread looks like a playschool.


    Oh, believe me, ramiro, I'm deadly serious. I've spent years banging
    my head against a brick wall trying to get sysadmins to switch off
    telnet and ftp and application developers to stop doing "chmod -R 666 ...".

    > It's true that telnet shouldn't be used but this binary still
    > available in Solaris


    If I were having any influence whatsosever, it wouldn't even be part of
    our standard build.




    --
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
    who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
    or that problem will never be solved by science.
    [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]

  4. Re: Telnet Vulnerability

    >>>>> Huge writes:

    > Oh, believe me, ramiro, I'm deadly serious. I've spent years
    > banging my head against a brick wall trying to get sysadmins to
    > switch off telnet and ftp and application developers to stop
    > doing "chmod -R 666 ...".

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    winDoS/9x-old-schoolers-turned-POSIX-developers? Horrors! On a
    previous job of mine, one of those folks one fine day came up with a
    "cute" piece of self-modifying code, as it were. Modifying one of the
    same application's executable /disk images/ that is. (No, sadly this
    is no premature April-Fool's joke.) Due to an approprate incantation
    involving chmod (via a GUI, of course!) he had never experienced any
    problems with that "solution" in the development environment.

    (Ok, it's not like I never pulled that kind of stunt in my high-school
    days myself, but I would never have imagined such breathtaking folly
    to persist beyond anyone's teenage years...)

    As an aside, this teaches the true reason for 666 being considered an
    "evil number" (and why it's really octal). No connection with the Book
    of Revelations and the gematriah-value of "Neron Qesar", as some folks
    would have us believe.

    --
    Stefan Jankowski
    Sysadmin, University of Freiburg, CS Dpt.
    s/spambucket//
    s/dave\.null/${FORENAME}.${LASTNAME}/

  5. Re: Telnet Vulnerability

    On 2007-02-20, Stefan Jankowski wrote:
    >>>>>> Huge writes:

    >
    >> Oh, believe me, ramiro, I'm deadly serious. I've spent years
    >> banging my head against a brick wall trying to get sysadmins to
    >> switch off telnet and ftp and application developers to stop
    >> doing "chmod -R 666 ...".

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > winDoS/9x-old-schoolers-turned-POSIX-developers?


    Yep. That was the same conclusion I came to.



    --
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
    who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
    or that problem will never be solved by science.
    [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org uk]

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2