SECURITY BUG IN INTERACTIVE UNIX SYSV386

[eric.a.olson]

In article <1991Feb18.140624.1860 at virtech.uucp> cpcahil at virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>
>THE uunencoded binary is not less dangerous.  I meant "a uuencoded binary
>that proves that root access was obtained without damaging the security
>of the system".
>
	Oh, come on, Conor...you would run a _binary_ file that
	proves that root access was obtained and that _claims_ not
	to have damaged the security system?  I would not.  I tried
	the source (segmentation violation on AT&T 3.2.1 and 3.2.2
	with no co-proc).   I think that perhaps the best of both
	worlds would have been served with the simple statement,
	"The u-area is not write-protected on all versions of the
	UNIX operating system."
							
						eric a. olson
						eao at mvucl.att.com