Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: !SPAM! [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:01:45 -0600 |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:26:04 -0500 (CDT), Ron DuFresne <dufresne@winternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Stephen Agar wrote:I think many of you are missing the point. Yes the guest/guest account is weak, but this kernel is (according to debian) patched..therefore free from local exploits that can be used to gain superuser access. I mean if this were the case, then any box that ran this version of debian to do something like "web hosting" that gave users shell access, may as well give them all full sudo. Because you people are assuming that if someone can gain access to the box, secured or not, they can gain root..i disagree.The issue here is why does debain include such a weak account,m thaqt has not been tamed via a very restricted chroot env!?
That's not the issue though. As someone who has installed and maintained debian systems over a period of years, I can assure you that debian does not include a guest account (or any account) with a weak password or shell. There aren't any shell accounts other than root on a debian install until added by the administrator. The weak account in question here was created by the original poster with the intent of catching one of these apparently automated ssh attacks.
As Barry pointed to directly, it all depends upon what you make available to your clients once in a shell. It;s very likely your server would be as exploitable as most 'default' installs with the kitchen sink dropped in. Perhaps not, but likely, depending upon what you 'installed and allow clients access to'. Thanks, Ron DuFresne
As for the defaults on the original posters install... that would of course depend entirely on what install method he chose. Like many current distros (Mandrake, Redhat etc) Debian offers a packaged install of a couple varieties (desktop, server, workstation etc) for an admin to pick from, or they can choose to run dselect (package management interface) and choose by hand what they do and do not want. This of course again comes back to not knowing what the initial poster did with the system beyond running dselect -> update -> install which would have autohandled updates and dependency resolution for installed packages. -- Tremaine IT Security Consultant _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning, KF_lists |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: !SPAM! [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning, Ron DuFresne |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: !SPAM! [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning, Ron DuFresne |
| Next by Thread: | Re: !SPAM! [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning, Ron DuFresne |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |