Re: bitchx exploit

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:24:06 PDT, Andrew Farmer said:
> I have never, ever seen BitchX installed suid, and there's no reason
> it would be. SSL clients work just fine without suid.

I'm sure there's *plenty* of places that managed to botch permissions on some
file or other, causing SSL to not work correctly, and then they chmod +s
things that don't work because they know how to wave a dead chicken over
the CPU, but they don't know how to *FIX* things.

Consider a box that some idiot has done a 'chmod 640 /usr/lib/libssl*'.....

(I've not personally seen a BitchX installed this way, but I've seen enough
OTHER stuff to convince me it's probably happening.  Even came across a setUID
/bin/ls that the sysadmin-monkey had done - and I've seen a *vendor* ship a
set-UID /bin/tar (so it could set the correct owner/group when extracting).

Attachment: _bin
Description:

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/