Re: Compaq CIM UG Overwrites Legal Notice

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Sun Sep 05 1999 - 00:28:53 PDT

  • Next message: : dp :: "Re: IE 5.0 allows executing programs"

    On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:07:32 PDT, "Free, Bob" <RWF4at_private>  said:
    > reboot. When the installation is completed after rebooting, these keys are
    > cleared and your legal notice is gone.
    
    Having installations that blow away files *intended* for user configuration
    is always Very Bad Juju.
    
    > If your security policies are reliant on legal notices this is not a good
    > thing. (...)
    
    OK.. I admit I'm reading it at 3AM, and it took 3 retries before I parsed
    this sentence the way you intended.  I kept reading it as "this" being
    the reliance, not the bug. It took 2 more reads before it sank in that
    parsed either way the sentence was still probably true.  Having legal
    notices dissapear is a Bad Thing, and having policies that require them
    may be a Bad Thing too...
    
    Can anybody out there cite case law or statute where having a legal
    notice actually makes a difference, in the case of a scriptz kiddy
    exploit that rarely, if ever, sees a legal notice?  I'm aware of
    the old "welcome to VMS" issue regarding the lack of a notice when the
    user logged in normally.  This is the opposite - entering a system
    via a means never intended to have a legal notice.  Could a login
    banner be self-defeating, if a hacker doesn't login?
    
    In any case, if your security policies are *reliant* on notices, as
    opposed to including them as one *small* part of a total solution,
    you're probably already 0wned... ;)
    
    				Valdis Kletnieks
    				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
    				Virginia Tech
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 15:02:19 PDT