netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH] IP: Make ping sockets optional

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, 24 Apr 2014 17:17:48 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] IP: Make ping sockets optional

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:27:12PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> > Userspace can't assume it now because access is controlled by a sysctl.
> > 
> > I think it is for distributions to choose whether to enable this feature
> > in ping and the kernel.
> 
> I am not (yet) buying this argument.
> 
> Saying 'you need to change sysctl foo for this to work' in a program manpage
> is a lot different than 'you need to recompile the kernel'.

Maybe we can make the Kconfig option depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED so that we can
be sure people don't have man-pages on the device. ;)

Seriously, I think doing authorization check based on gids in a sysctl is
wrong. Switching over to capabilities seems to make this interface much
more useable to me. But we would need to make sure, that we don't suddenly
allow people to use those sockets where it was restricted previously.

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
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