Brett Lymn wrote:
I guess I mentioned it earlier in the thread, I'm new to Unix, I know
something here and there, but not much. You'll have to excuse me for
wrong statements I make here, we all had to learn at some point, you
weren't born clutching POSIX spec, were you?
> According to Pavel Galynin:
> >Are you familiar with Unix desktop anti-virus soft?
> Not targeted at the unix binaries - the problem that a virus writer
> has on unix is that, unless the user is really sloppy with their root
> access (i.e. they run as root all the time OR they have . in their
> path), then about the best the virus can do is attach it to the user's
> own files.
I'm not familiar with the interiors to produce a response that wpul look
like an intelligent guess.
> > i'm not, but I
> >assume that with Unix high-level programming required for portability
> >and impossibility to write ASM progs.
> When you assume....
I told ya ( see top )
> You can write assembly programs on the unix platform, there is nothing
> stopping you doing this. The reason that most people do not do it is
> that there is very little you can do without resorting to system calls
> and constructing a syscall stack frame in assembly is a pain in the
> arse. You seem to have a very dos/pc centric view
> and are trying to
> translate this to unix
Have no other choice, I've gotta build frome SOME kind of knowledge.
> - typically on a unix machine (regardless of
> the architecture) you cannot take control of _any_ of the hardware, to
> do so would result in a access violation and the termination of your
NONE? No bugs, no tricks, nothin' ?
> > This leaves you undefended and
> >dressed-down in front of a polymorphic. I would be scared to even think
> >about what would happen if a virus was designed for a specific Unix
> >brand and platform...
> Getting the thing onto the machine is a bit of a problem - the pc
> world works on handing binaries around which makes it easy to hide the
> real intent of the code. Traditionally, on a unix platform the source
> is distributed due to the problems of making binaries for all the
> different platforms, this in itself does not guarantee protection
> against malicious code but it does make it harder to hide.
You just need to get the virus to execute, that's all. You can use
eploits and stuff like that the crackers use.
> >Well, I don't know of any virii that use protected mode, but if there
> >were ( there could be by now ), circumventing Unix memory protection
> >would be very easy with some use of Appendix H and the likes
> Suggest you go back and read your appendix H again - you will find
> that those instructions only work in ring 0 (from memory, my 486 book
> is a long way away), if you try to access those instructions from any
> other ring you will generate a trap. Guess which ring all the user
> processes live in - not ring 0 so any attempt to manipulate the mmu or
> other such instructions will result in the user process being
Just a simple question: New computers seem to come with flash bios, is
it possible for a user priviledged program to get to the hardware
necessary to reprogram it?
> >Just lookin' :))
> I suggest you do that with the source of one of the free unixen. It
> would be most educational for you I think - especially how the kernel
> controls access to the hardware.
I've neither expertise, nor time to do so at this time. I have to learn
how to use Unix before programming for it.