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: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:08:44 +1000 From: Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...il.com> To: Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>, Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>, Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>, Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>, Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>, "C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>, Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3] Unprivileged: Disable raising of privileges On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr> wrote: > Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > >> Well to be fair its random regurgitated security idea of every year or >> two. > > true, last year the same kind of discussion occurs with the 'personal > firewall' aka a network MAC. > http://marc.info/?t=123247387500003&r=3&w=2 > http://marc.info/?t=123187029200001&r=2&w=2 Lets step back for a moment. What is the common issue with both. The issue is simple. "How to I generically tell the secuirty system want particular restrictions." There is no generic LSM API for application or users to talk to the LSM and say I want the following restricted. Of course the restrictions have to be tighter than what the profiles already say. To control the LSM the applications are expected to know what the LSM. This has caused items like chrome major issues. Also by providing a generic LSM API there would be a base set of requirements for a LSM to provide to meet the requirements of the generic interfaces. Basically until a generic interface to talk to LSM module is provided these requests are going to keep coming. Maybe assign secuirty ops string values that applications can say disable the following secuirty operations from me. Application does not need to be informed what is disabled from it. Peter Dolding -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists