[Bleat bleat.. "Don't install the compiler it makes it a "little bit safer"]
[Bleat bleat "No it doesn't make a difference"]
Mooseapples. Both herds are wrong. *Not* having the compiler makes the system
*Less* secure, because it's more of a PITA for the admin to apply
fixes. Doesn't
matter
On 8/24/06, Nick Shank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Regardless, I was simply asking if 1) The possibility of a user who has
access to the system had been thought of, and 2) Would it matter.
Umm, hasn't this whole discussion been about the situation when the
user has access? If they don't ha
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:38:26PM -0700, Nick Shank wrote:
> Through all of this, and maybe I've just missed it, what happens when a
> user tries to make spl01t.c?
stop it, please, you're killing me.
There is nothing special about your machine that makes binaries compiled
somewhere else not be
Scott Plumlee wrote:
NetNeanderthal wrote:
On 8/24/06, Anton Karpov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Removing compiler doesn't bring much more security to your system,
but it
can make it a little bit safer. Very little bit, but safer. I mean,
if your
system has local root hole, for example, in this
David Terrell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:38:26PM -0700, Nick Shank wrote:
Through all of this, and maybe I've just missed it, what happens when a
user tries to make spl01t.c?
stop it, please, you're killing me.
There is nothing special about your machine that makes binaries com
NetNeanderthal wrote:
On 8/24/06, Anton Karpov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Removing compiler doesn't bring much more security to your system, but it
can make it a little bit safer. Very little bit, but safer. I mean, if
your
system has local root hole, for example, in this case cracker should
> > If a hacker is on your system, he'll also manage to install
> the compiler
> > himself before using it.
>
> It's still a valid concern. If someone's going to try to
> break into your system and do nefarious deeds, you should be
> trying to make them work for it as much as possible.
Layered
On 8/24/06, Anton Karpov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Removing compiler doesn't bring much more security to your system, but it
can make it a little bit safer. Very little bit, but safer. I mean, if your
system has local root hole, for example, in this case cracker should
compile his sploit someth
> It's still a valid concern. If someone's going to try to break into
your
> system and do nefarious deeds, you should be trying to make them work
for
> it as much as possible.
>
> Physical security standards recommending not leaving toolboxes outside
> your backdoor so that a thief won't take you
-- Original message --
From: "Stephan A. Rickauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tomas wrote:
> > Yes it's too late, but why to let a hacker to compile his exploits on
> > your system and to go compromising other PCs (from your DMZ or from
> > internet, it doesn't matter).
"Stephan A. Rickauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People from time to time say they don't want to have a compiler
> installed on a productive system due to security issues. I don't
> understand this. Isn't is too late anyway, if someone's already able to
> make use of the compiler?
Yes, its too
Anton Karpov wrote:
> Removing compiler doesn't bring much more security to your system, but
> it can make it a little bit safer. Very little bit, but safer. I mean,
> if your system has local root hole, for example, in this case cracker
> should compile his sploit somethere outside your box, and t
On 8/24/06, Stephan A. Rickauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People from time to time say they don't want to have a compiler
installed on a productive system due to security issues. I don't
understand this. Isn't is too late anyway, if someone's already able to
make use of the compiler?
I 'll st
Anton Karpov wrote:
2006/8/24, Stephan A. Rickauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
People from time to time say they don't want to have a compiler
installed on a productive system due to security issues. I don't
understand this. Isn't is too late anyway, if someone's already able to
make use of the compile
2006/8/24, Stephan A. Rickauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> People from time to time say they don't want to have a compiler
> installed on a productive system due to security issues. I don't
> understand this. Isn't is too late anyway, if someone's already able to
> make use of the compiler?
>
> --
>
Well, given the prevalance of scripting languages and such, it seems
like a false sense of security.
And frankly, why can't the cracker that already knows what OS he's
working on, not just supply
a pre-compiled binary...
But whatever works for people.
Han Boetes wrote:
Tomas wrote:
Yes
Tomas wrote:
> Yes it's too late, but why to let a hacker to compile his exploits on
> your system and to go compromising other PCs (from your DMZ or from
> internet, it doesn't matter).
If a hacker is on your system, he'll also manage to install the compiler
himself before using it.
Stephan
[de
Tomas wrote:
> Yes it's too late, but why to let a hacker to compile his
> exploits on your system and to go compromising other PCs (from
> your DMZ or from internet, it doesn't matter).
Exactly, all compilers should be forbidden!
# Han
Yes it's too late, but why to let a hacker to compile his exploits on
your system and to go compromising other PCs (from your DMZ or from
internet, it doesn't matter).
Stephan A. Rickauer wrote:
People from time to time say they don't want to have a compiler
installed on a productive system du
People from time to time say they don't want to have a compiler
installed on a productive system due to security issues. I don't
understand this. Isn't is too late anyway, if someone's already able to
make use of the compiler?
--
Stephan A. Rickauer
20 matches
Mail list logo
