Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: Solaris patchadd(1) (3) symlink vulnerabilty


From: Peter W <peterw () USA NET>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:55:23 -0500

At 9:13am Dec 21, 2000, Paul Szabo wrote:

Juergen P. Meier <jpm () class de> wrote:

However: Sun Microsystems does recommend to only install
patches at single-user mode (runlevel S). ...
... if you follow the Vendors recommendations, you are
not vulnerable.

The attacker can create the symlinks before you go single-user.

What's the difference between taking a Unix box to single-user mode and
asking an NT box to reboot? The former keeps that silly, precious 'uptime'
intact so you don't lose your geek bragging rights. The reality is that
going to single user mode means disabling the services that you set the
box up to provide. Would anyone out there consider single-user mode time
in their availability stats? Would you be happy if your outsourced server
provider claimed 99.999% availability but only 99.8% was in full network /
multiuser mode? I think not.

Let's be serious about this: Sun seems to release patches at about the
same rate as Microsoft does,[0] even if they're not as well publicized.
Unix/Linux geeks enjoy ridiculing Windows' tendency to require reboots
after installing hotfixes. Sun execs and marketing folks have joined in
this game at times.[1]

Now Sun is basically saying you have to reboot when installing a patch if
you want to be safe,[2] all because they won't fix their shell
interpreters. This is a bad joke, and Sun should be embarassed.

I wonder if anyone has had luck replacing the Solaris shell interpreters
with something like GNU or other GPL'ed versions, e.g., replacing the
Bourne shell with the FSF's BASH shell?

-Peter

[0] Solaris 8 already has 196 patches according to the 16 Dec. report.

[1] http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-323305.html
"Anything more aggressive than changing a file name requires a reboot in
Windows," [Sun CEO Scott McNealy] quipped.

[2] Yes, some patches require special care, but many do not. Many single
patches (unlike cluster bundles) do not require reboots to take effect.


Current thread: