Hi FD, This is not a zero-day vulnerability in the concept of a programmatic Flaw. But if no one, or the majority of all Samba users never knew that This option was available, or knew that this functionality was enabled by default I think this problem should still be highlighted in the way that the samba team did. I think its good that people increase awareness of these type of problems Because they are all over the place. Its also one of the reasons why its So important to harden your default installation, because configuration options Like this one tend to be enable by default. I think it was a good finding and im glad that people are discussing it. Best regards, David Jacoby -----Original Message----- From: paul.szabo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:paul.szabo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: den 6 februari 2010 22:48 To: bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Samba Remote Zero-Day Exploit I find it puzzling how this discussion, including the official Samba response http://www.samba.org/samba/news/symlink_attack.html fails to consider whether the mentioned configuration (when admin sets non-default "writeable = yes" but leaving default "wide links = yes") allows write access to the whole filesystem (where the user has UNIX rights). I also wonder about the interaction with the setting of "unix extensions" (which I had set to non-default "no" to help Mac clients). Cheers, Paul Paul Szabo psz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/ School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Australia
