From: Steve Gibbons <steve@aztech.net>
To: tomw@netscape.com
Message Hash: cd73a5413f47924c00a06201bf418fed6294181ec307586c028498d6e8c3ee1a
Message ID: <009A015C.30D31580.701@aztech.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-30 16:04:08 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:04:08 +0800
From: Steve Gibbons <steve@aztech.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:04:08 +0800
To: tomw@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Netscape 2.01 fixes server vulnerabilities by breaking the client...
Message-ID: <009A015C.30D31580.701@aztech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
(This was previously posted to cypherpunks list, I have expanded the
distribution to the firewalls list due to the content.)
In Article: <315C8FCB.2781@netscape.com>, Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com> wrote:
# Rich Graves wrote:
# >
# > Now I suppose they'll want me to fix all the pages where I do a finger
# > with a gopher://host:79/0user Any chance this nonfix can be unfixed?
# >
# > This nonfix was applied to the UNIX and Win32 versions; I haven't
# > checked the other platforms.
# It may be unpleasant, but it's a fact that there was a real security
# hole here. There is a well known buffer overrun bug in finger that a
# lot of people inside firewalls haven't fixed. Using gopher: URLs
# in IMG tags it was possible to do nasty things. We tried to err on
# the side of permissivity, but finger was one port we just couldn't
# allow. Yes, it sucks. So does someone reaching through your firewall
# and running commands as root.
Let's look at this from the perspective of a company with a firewall:
Q: Do I want my users dictating what's allowed?
A: Probably not.
Q: Do I want my software vendors dictating what's allowed?
A: Maybe not.
Real Q1: When are sun/netscape/browser-vendor-x going to provide
standardized, secure, multi-teired configuration options?
Real Q2: It seams to me that most of the standard TCP protocols that a
gopher client can talk to should have similarly standard protocol-specifiers
for the URL. Browser vendors are in a perfect position to say "this lack
of synchronization is a real problem" and "It's bitten us already" and to
take care of the problem by proposing RFCs.
Real Q3: (Somewhat off-topic) when are signed applets going to appear?
comprehensive standards coupled with multi-teired configuration options
would allow real-world customers and their net-neighbors to sleep a little
better at night.
--
Steve@AZTech.Net
Return to March 1996
Return to “Steve Gibbons <steve@aztech.net>”
1996-03-30 (Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:04:08 +0800) - Re: Netscape 2.01 fixes server vulnerabilities by breaking the client… - Steve Gibbons <steve@aztech.net>