full-disclosure - Re: why not a sandbox

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]

Message-ID: <b086760e0909071431q53dc84e0k871d65b6389f9a93@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:31:44 +0200
From: yersinia <yersinia.spiros@...il.com>
To: Adrenalin <adrenalinup@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: why not a sandbox

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Adrenalin <adrenalinup@...il.com> wrote:

> It seems like the plugins in Chrome are not in a sandbox
>
> "One additional, important area that is not covered by the sandbox are
> plugins like Flash. Restricting what plugins can do does not fit well with
> what users expect, which makes plugins a major vector for attack. Langley
> said that the plugin support on Linux is relatively new, but "our
> experience on Windows is that, in order for Flash to do all the things that
> various sites expect it to be able to do, the sandbox has to be so full of
> holes that it's rather useless". He is currently looking at SELinux as a
> way to potentially restrict plugins, but, for now, they are wide open. "
>
> Google's Chromium sandbox - http://lwn.net/Articles/347547/ (August 19,
> 2009)
>
> From design-documents page "It is also possible to run the plugin processes
> inside a sandbox target, using the --safe-plugins command line." hm
>
> IMHO, if you want to go in a real or almost so , sandbox you have to
execute with a MAC security policy. Something like
http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/13376.html

BTW, xguest is on Fedora 10/11.  But a virtual machine could be better.
Protected with svirt, of course. http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/30565.html


> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM, BlackHawk <hawkgotyou@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> doesn't chrome already run any single tab in a sandbox?
>>
>> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/