possible bug
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:44 amHi,
I was configuring in.identd with slackware 9 and was coming across some reporting that appeared incorrect. The ACL for inetd had the mentioned lines however the ACL for in.identd did not. After adding the lines to in.identd instead the problem was fixed.
Apr 17 04:22:38 src@soup grsec: exec of /usr/sbin/in.identd (in.identd -P/var/run/in.identd.pid ) by (inetd:15664) UID(0) EUID(0),
Apr 17 04:22:38 src@soup grsec: denied access to hidden file /lib/ld-2.2.5.so by (inetd:15664) UID(0) EUID(0), parent (inetd:26021)
Apr 17 04:22:38 src@soup grsec: denied access to hidden file /dev/log by (inetd:15664) UID(0) EUID(0), parent (inetd:26021) UID(0)
Shouldnt this be reporting the process as in.identd rather than inetd?
I figured I'd pass the info along just *incase* this is infact a bug.
-TGK
I was configuring in.identd with slackware 9 and was coming across some reporting that appeared incorrect. The ACL for inetd had the mentioned lines however the ACL for in.identd did not. After adding the lines to in.identd instead the problem was fixed.
Apr 17 04:22:38 src@soup grsec: exec of /usr/sbin/in.identd (in.identd -P/var/run/in.identd.pid ) by (inetd:15664) UID(0) EUID(0),
Apr 17 04:22:38 src@soup grsec: denied access to hidden file /lib/ld-2.2.5.so by (inetd:15664) UID(0) EUID(0), parent (inetd:26021)
Apr 17 04:22:38 src@soup grsec: denied access to hidden file /dev/log by (inetd:15664) UID(0) EUID(0), parent (inetd:26021) UID(0)
Shouldnt this be reporting the process as in.identd rather than inetd?
I figured I'd pass the info along just *incase* this is infact a bug.
-TGK