Re: Certifying a RedHat Install
Alan Hicks <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.linux |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 14, 2004, at 1:37 PM, abe wrote: > My client wants me to certify there are no back doors in the RedHat 9 > server we are going to deliver. It's a base RH9 install with a few > extra RPM's, like Guarddog. Well you can't be absolutely certain that there aren't any backdoors in the software (call them vulnerabilities instead of back doors. The first is unintentional), but there are some things you can do, starting with not using RedHat 9. I'm not going to get into a distro flame war here, but RedHat 9 is kinda old now, and Fedora Core 1 and 2 aren't exactly something I would feel comfortable deploying as a server (too bleeding edge). As for minimizing the chance of a back door being present on the system, I would recommend culling any software you don't use, right down to the libraries. From what I know of RedHat, this is easier said than done, for you'll soon wind up in dependency hell. Personally, I would install a very trimmed down Slackware. Version 10.0 was just recently released and I don't know of any vulnerabilities have been found for the software versions included in it yet. Also, the smaller an installation, the less chance that you'll be cracked. Imagine a cracker gaining some control over a service your server is running (let's say apache), but only has user privileges (exploit doesn't allow for privilege escalation). If there's a flaw in some userland utility you don't use, it could possible be used for such privilege escalation. At least that's my reasoning behind that. > Question is what's the best way for us to certify this? > * rpm -Va ? > * A global md5 on each file? All that will do is verify that the software that is installed as an RPM is identical to what was originally shipped by RedHat. Personally I think that's way too much work. > Also, what's the best way to minimize liability if they are hacked? A disclaimer that they read over and sign. - -- It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, Than for a man to hear the song of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFA9ZPDlKR45I6cfKARAu7WAJ9rhKn8F8hxa6IIg8KTe6ker0lhsQCeLFJz 34sz6lSQwACwAjbduqCK2AU= =qVtc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----