| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Line.LNX.4.64.0704191618360.5128@d.namei> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:19:05 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> To: Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@...a.inka.de> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <Line.LNX.4.64.0704180935100.25495@...amei> you wrote: > > Perhaps -- until your httpd is compromised via a buffer overflow or > > simply misbehaves due to a software or configuration flaw, then the > > assumptions being made about its use of pathnames and their security > > properties are out the window. > > Hu? Even a compromised httpd (especially a compromised httpd) is bound to > the app armor policies. This means it cannot (for example) write to > /var/www/* - if it never needed to at normal/profiling time. This has been addressed several times already, please read the full thread. - James -- James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists