3 ms·
I'm wondering how these shell providers deal with malicious users. In security the standard response to an untrusted person getting shell access/code execution
by Rjevski 9y ago
I'm wondering how these shell providers deal with malicious users. In security the standard response to an untrusted person getting shell access/code execution is to reinstall the entire server due to the risks of kernel privilege-escalation exploits. How do those people manage this risk given they're allowing shell access on purpose? Or are they already pwned and just not know it?
- microwavecamera 9y agoI would guess they use BSD jails, but I can't find any info. Alot of web hosting companies allow ssh access on shared hosting servers, it's pretty common.
- KirinDave 9y agoBSD derivative systems have a lot better isolation than mondern Linux systems. In fact, one Docker "port" for FreeBSD is an interface over their jails functionality and it can be difficult to tell uourr even in a jail at first. They all have a much richer history of supporting multi-user machines. Linux's route to multi-user is a very different history with very different use cases. It's also got a much richer history around single user machines (and the performance, efficiency and support gains you get from focusing there).
- rmbeard 9y agoI've been on SDF for a number of years and have never had any problems, it's very stable and secure. The only issue has been a bit of spam with the e-mail system, a couple of years back but they tightened the filtering up after a bit and that solved that problem.