From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Haertel <mike@ducky.net>
Message-Id: <200105262323.f4QNNF904664@ducky.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 (in)security
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0105261759130.1754-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:23:15 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a91f65dc-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>OK, it's not a security hole - you'd need to have access to /dev/draw on
>CPU server [...]

I agree that there are local security holes and they're bad, however
network security holes are lots worse.

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that many if not all
of the networkable 9p servers seem to be horrendously insecure,
and since some of them will allow anonymous attach, any Plan 9
server with exported filesystems is vulnerable to a sufficiently
clever attacker.

I constantly see people portscanning my systems, script kiddies
running well-known Linux attacks and who knows what else (it helps
to run a less-popular OS :-).  And I am not even an interesting
target (low bandwidth link, no web site, nothing interesting on my
systems, etc).  I shudder to imagine the number and variety of
attacks the "interesting" sites must get.  It's a jungle out there.