linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ELF executable signing and verification

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:25:37 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pjones@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	dhowells@...hat.com, jwboyer@...hat.com,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ELF executable signing and verification

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 06:22:47PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:

[..]
> > Currently it is expected to use these patches only for statically linked
> > executables. No dynamic linking. In fact patches specifically disable
> > calling interpreter. This does not prevent against somebody using dlopen()
> > sutff. So don't sign binaries which do that.
> 
> How dynamic linking and interpreter are related together?

Well interpreter will do the dynamic linking automatically? So I blocked
that.

> 
> This is rather policy than enforcement.
> Protection works only for statically linked binaries, because dynamic
> libraries are not verified.

Agreed.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/