lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:49:50 +1100 From: Grant Coady <grant_lkml@...o.com.au> To: Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org> Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org>, Grant Coady <gcoady.lk@...il.com>, dann frazier <dannf@...nf.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org Subject: Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:36:30 +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org> wrote: >> > As you can see I now can see the symbolic links perfectly and they work as >> > expected. >> > >> > In fact, this patch is working so well that it poses a security risk, as now >> > the devices on my /mnt/dev directory are not only seen as devices (like they >> > were seen on 2.4.33) but they also work (which didn't happen on 2.4.33). >> >> Why do you consider this a security problem ? Is any user able to create a >> device entry with enough permissions ? As a general rule of thumb, networked >> file systems should be mounted with the "nodev" option. > >You are completely right on that, it is just that I thought those devices >didn't work on 2.4.33, but I just retested again and they work ok, only that >they were not working to me on the PC I tested the other day and it was >because of a nodev option :-) just that. > >So... I have finised with my tests, I have tested an x86 client on which it >worked ok, just like on the PowerPC client, both working perfectly just like >they used to do on 2.4.33. > >> Grant, just to be sure, are you really certain that you tried the fixed kernel ? >> It is possible that you booted a wrong kernel during one of your tests. I'm >> intrigued by the fact that it changed nothing for you and that it fixed the >> problem for Santiago. > >Maybe he had also applied some of the earlier patches you had sent and that >I did not apply to mine? > >Just to clear things up a bit, I'm sure I'm with the 2.4.34 kernel and... >I'm running a pristine kernel with just this latest patch applied, the one >that changes S_IFREG for (fattr->f_mode & S_IFMT). Same kernel + patch here for latest results posting :) We seem to get similar results now -- though I query the file execute bits coming up. Grant. > >Regards... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists