On Thursday, February 22, 2001, 8:09:36 PM, andre wrote: > I've used macs as servers for fairly large numbers of people working for a > school district (k12 districts aren't into *nixes much yet, at least mine > wasn't...). It ran webstar (httpd), eims (mail), quickdns pro, and > netpresenz (ftpd). In my estimation, the security advantage definitely > goes to the mac. Quite frankly, I never spent any time performing security > checks / tests, because there just isn't the ability to buffer overflow to > a rootshell, for example. If an app crashes, that app dies (and, being a > mac, chances are the rest of the system dies with it). Believe it or not, > macs used as servers (that are intelligently set up) are fairly stable... > at least, far more stable than a mac that's used as a desktop (nothing > approaching *nix stability, of course). [snip]
you can't claim it is secured against buffer overflows because there are only GUI shells! the more or less standard technique of executing a shell already available on the server when exploiting such a bug is an easy way to get anything done. thats all! given a clever coder and some time that mac would be broken too. you could, for example: place in the buffer a small program which would bind to a tcp port and let you upload a second (larger) program to execute. - crazy-b ================================================================ Gaute Gullesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: +47 922 48 107 Fingerprint: AF90 7B96 9835 AA26 4DCC D4F7 1B82 110C B5DF 00B1 Support the antiSecurity movement!: http://anti.security.is/ ================================================================
