SECURITY BUG IN INTERACTIVE UNIX SYSV386

[Rob Healey]

In article <1991Feb12.052336.29639 at motcad.portal.com> jtc at motcad.portal.com (J.T. Conklin) writes:
>>Now, the question is, what do we do to protect ourselves in the meantime?
>If I remember correctly, Sun Microsystems sent out a fixed version of 
>sendmail to its customer base free of charge the week after the Internet
>Worm Attack.  I see no reason why we should expect less from the i386
>UNIX vendors.  In my opinion, any vendor that doesn't respond to this
>problem with the attention it is due, doesn't deserve to be in business.
>

	I'd consider extending this to any vendor that didn't catch this
	BEFORE the system was shipped doesn't deserve to be in business.

	HOW can the QA dept. of ANY UNIX system miss a bug of this
	magnitude? After all, they should have had unexplained system
	panics when the test that scribbles over all of a USER mode virtual
	address space to check MMU problems scribbles all over the ublock...

	ANY user mode process can go wild, scribble in the higher area of it's
	VM space, wipe out the ublock and it's bye-bye UNIX...

	Panic: OS vendor irresponsibility
	       syncing disks... (glug, glug, glug) B^(.

	       -Rob

Speaking for self, not company.