undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmordocai9y ago0 comments

No, that's wrong. Wikipedia has definitions that match my own knowledge, so i'll link and quote those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit

"A rootkit is a collection of computer software, typically malicious, designed to enable access to a computer or areas of its software that would not otherwise be allowed (for example, to an unauthorized user) while at the same time masking its existence or the existence of other software."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)

"A backdoor is a method, often secret, of bypassing normal authentication in a product, computer system, cryptosystem or algorithm etc. Backdoors are often used for securing unauthorized remote access to a computer, or obtaining access to plaintext in cryptographic systems.

A backdoor may take the form of a hidden part of a program,[1] a separate program (e.g. Back Orifice may subvert the system through a rootkit), or may be a hardware feature.[2] Although normally surreptitiously installed, in some cases backdoors are deliberate and widely known. These kinds of backdoors might have "legitimate" uses such as providing the manufacturer with a way to restore user passwords."

0 comments

woodman9y ago

No, that is really wrong. Rootkits aren't for privilege escalation, see the paragraph immediately following your quote:

"... an attacker can install it once they've obtained root or Administrator access."

Calling BO a backdoor is a major corruption of the word, as you loose the only word for describing intentionally weakened security - so that you may describe a thing which already has several more explicitly defining names: malware, trojan, dropper, etc.

jdmichal9y ago

The installation of the rootkit is different from its purpose. A rootkit may require a root permission to install, perhaps piggybacking on another legitimate install such as in the famous Sony BMG rootkit. Or it may use an exploit to gain root access and install.

However, once installed, the purpose is the same: To provide the attacker with root permissions. It will also typically use its access to root permissions to hide itself from detection.

woodman9y ago

> A rootkit may require a root permission to install...

This sort of phrasing is misleading. If your OS restricts security sensitive kernel functions to the root user (hint: 99% of OSes do), then it isn't "may" - it is "must". Are there wrapper scripts that run privilege escalation exploits before installing the rootkit? Yes. Doesn't that make the exploit part of the rootkit? No, they are two very different things performing two different functions and are capable of operating independent of one-another.

> ...the purpose is the same: To provide the attacker with root permissions.

No, it is to allow code to run at the same privilege level as the kernel itself. Unrestricted loadable kernel modules. Think that is a distinction without a difference? OSX disagrees, as does Windows.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmordocai9y ago0 comments

No, that's wrong. Wikipedia has definitions that match my own knowledge, so i'll link and quote those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)

0 comments

woodman9y ago

No, that is really wrong. Rootkits aren't for privilege escalation, see the paragraph immediately following your quote:

"... an attacker can install it once they've obtained root or Administrator access."

jdmichal9y ago

However, once installed, the purpose is the same: To provide the attacker with root permissions. It will also typically use its access to root permissions to hide itself from detection.

woodman9y ago

> A rootkit may require a root permission to install...

> ...the purpose is the same: To provide the attacker with root permissions.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse