linux-kernel - Re: Security issues with local filesystem caching

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: <1161860085.12781.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:54:45 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	jmorris@...ei.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aviro@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Security issues with local filesystem caching

Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 01:32 +0100, ysgrifennodd Al Viro:
> to.  What about access to cache tree by root process that has nothing
> to do with that daemon?  Should it get free access to that stuff, regardless
> of what policy might say about access to cached files?  Or should we at
> least try to make sure that we have the instances in cache no more permissive
> than originals on NFS?

This is already the case however. Root has ptrace, people have /proc
access (even more than before because the chroot check was broken
recently), root has CAP_SYS_RAWIO.


-
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/