[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:06:59 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: vegard.nossum@...cle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:52:24PM +0100, vegard.nossum@...cle.com wrote:
> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
>
> The idea is simple -- since different kernel versions are vulnerable to
> different root exploits, hackers most likely try multiple exploits before
> they actually succeed.
Suppose we put put this into the mainstream kernel. Wouldn't writers
of root kit adapt by checking for the kernel version to avoid checking
for exploits that are known not work? So the question is whether the
additional complexity in the kernel is going to be worth it, since
once the attackers adapt, the benefits of trying to detect attacks for
mitigated exploits will be minimal.
Regards,
- Ted
--
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