| 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, 16 Apr 2012 10:15:33 -0400 From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> To: libseccomp-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [libseccomp-discuss] ANN: libseccomp On Friday, April 13, 2012 11:47:08 PM Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Paul Moore wrote: > > the seccomp filter into the kernel. By default libseccomp attempts to set > > NO_NEW_PRIVS but does not fail if prctl(NO_NEW_PRIVS) returns with an > > error; > > Isn't that dangerous in non-obvious ways, as in it can actually > cause/activate/enable/open security issues on priviledged processes that > don't expect whatever filtering seccomp will subject them to? We could debate this point but it turns out it is a bit of a non-issue as the kernel code requires NO_NEW_PRIVS unless CAP_SYS_ADMIN is set; if neither conditions are true the seccomp filter with fail (check Will's patches). If prctl(NO_NEW_PRIVS) fails the error is always returned, and the attribute/boolean to disable this functionality has been removed since it likely serves little purpose. > Defaults are important, as they're what people _who don't know any better_ > are likely to use. Agreed. You'll never hear me argue otherwise. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- 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