Jason Miller, 2006-05-01
Sendmail's wide market share, ancient code base and long vulnerability history make it an interesting example about the need for software to start from a secure design.
Colapse all |
Post comment
Sendmail and root???
2006-05-02
Anonymous
Anonymous
"Sendmail might be a relatively old application, but it wasn't designed with the ultimate goal of security in mind. Sendmail's liberal use of root access exacerbates these problems."
It has been at least 5 years since sendmail has used root routinely. The MTA can run as anyone or no-one. It only ...
[ more ] [ reply ]
It has been at least 5 years since sendmail has used root routinely. The MTA can run as anyone or no-one. It only ...
[ more ] [ reply ]
Sendmail and secure design
2006-05-02
Robert Banz (rob@nofocus.org)
Robert Banz (rob@nofocus.org)
I'm surprised that people are still going around saying "sendmail runs as root." Most operating systems that integrate sendmail now ship it running as another user (such as smmsp, sendmail, etc.) and leave the root-running to something less dangerous, such as the local delivery agent.
It's besid...
[ more ] [ reply ]
It's besid...
[ more ] [ reply ]
Sendmail
2006-05-03
Alexey Vesnin
Alexey Vesnin
It's a good point to find, describe and determine the bug/inconvinience or just a mistype in application - we're ALL humans, not the bots. We have a right to make mistakes sometimes, but don't all the times. Remember Windows XP SP1 - yes, there were alot of good bugfixes, adding two time more proble...
[ more ] [ reply ]
[ more ] [ reply ]
Sendmail and secure design
2006-05-03
Matthew Murphy
Matthew Murphy
I buy the idea that there are a finite number of vulnerabilities in any given code base. For instance, one given version of Sendmail, as-released, will only contain a certain number of bugs. This is only logical, as Sendmail is made up of a finite amount of code.
As such, maturity generally hel...
[ more ] [ reply ]
As such, maturity generally hel...
[ more ] [ reply ]

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/17699...
[ more ] [ reply ]