linux-kernel - Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports

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: <20070122093630.GA20431@clandestino.aytolacoruna.es>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:36:30 +0100
From:	Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org>,
	Grant Coady <gcoady.lk@...il.com>,
	dann frazier <dannf@...nf.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports

> > As you can see I now can see the symbolic links perfectly and they work as
> > expected.
> > 
> > In fact, this patch is working so well that it poses a security risk, as now
> > the devices on my /mnt/dev directory are not only seen as devices (like they
> > were seen on 2.4.33) but they also work (which didn't happen on 2.4.33).
> 
> Why do you consider this a security problem ? Is any user able to create a
> device entry with enough permissions ? As a general rule of thumb, networked
> file systems should be mounted with the "nodev" option.

You are completely right on that, it is just that I thought those devices
didn't work on 2.4.33, but I just retested again and they work ok, only that
they were not working to me on the PC I tested the other day and it was
because of a nodev option :-) just that.

So... I have finised with my tests, I have tested an x86 client on which it
worked ok, just like on the PowerPC client, both working perfectly just like
they used to do on 2.4.33.

> Grant, just to be sure, are you really certain that you tried the fixed kernel ?
> It is possible that you booted a wrong kernel during one of your tests. I'm
> intrigued by the fact that it changed nothing for you and that it fixed the
> problem for Santiago.

Maybe he had also applied some of the earlier patches you had sent and that
I did not apply to mine?

Just to clear things up a bit, I'm sure I'm with the 2.4.34 kernel and...
I'm running a pristine kernel with just this latest patch applied, the one
that changes S_IFREG for (fattr->f_mode & S_IFMT).

Regards...
-- 
Santiago García Mantiñán
-
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/