linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

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:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:12:03 +0100
From:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	LKML <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>,
	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 12/12/2013 10:13 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:52:24PM +0100, vegard.nossum@...cle.com wrote:
>>> The idea is simple -- since different kernel versions are vulnerable to
>>> different root exploits, hackers most likely try multiple exploits before
>>> they actually succeed.
>
> I like it. I like how lightweight it is, and I like that it can be
> trivially compiled out. My concerns would be:
>
> - how do we avoid bikeshedding about which exploits are "serious
> enough" to trigger a report?

Well, I've already suggested that only bugs that potentially lead to 
privilege escalation/intrusion (local and remote) would be candidates. 
This probably includes any kind of buffer overflow or "wild write" bug.

Clearly, a bug should also be present over a complete release cycle 
before it's worth annotating. A bug introduced in -rc1 and fixed in -rc5 
is NOT a candidate.

> - who will keep adding these triggers going forward?
>
> I'm more than happy to assist with adding future triggers, but I don't
> want to be the only person doing it. :)

Thanks! Without making any promises, I am fairly sure that my team has 
an interest in adding and maintaining triggers.

Based on some of the later comments in this thread, I think it might be 
a good idea to keep a separate git tree for the triggers for a while. 
You are of course welcome to contribute in any case.


Vegard
--
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/