Re: Mambo, Coppermine and PHPBB Attacks

Paul Laudanski wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
>
> > It's great if this failsafe feature works as expected.
> > Nobody can guarantee newbie php programmer make such hole in an app.
> >
> > These changes made allow_url_fopen=off useless.
>
>
> Its not about a single solution being the silver bullet.  The only 
> security is defense in depth.  You build secure code.  You filter input 
> and output.  You configure php.ini properly.  You configure httpd.conf 
> properly.  Install mod_security.  Install an IDS that filters for well 
> known attacks against your server.  Install a reporting tool that monitors 
> your logs.  Make sure your PHP reports warnings, errors, and fix them...
>
> Point is... its only a step in the overall level of layered security.  The 
> more tools you put up, as you require or can use but only you can 
> determine that, the more an attacker has to get thru.

I agree.

But I don't insist nx bit support is useless. Failsafe feature would
be nice, especially if there are many programmers. If building secure
code is easy, there would be no buffer overflows in recent C/C++ programs.

Anyway, most php script do not need remote script execution feature.
And even with SELinux, it cannot prevent to execute remote code while
access to local file could be rejected and reported.

Making allow_url_fopen useless is bad thing. Remote code execution bug
is common pit hole for newbie php programmers.

-- 
Yasuo Ohgaki