[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4663289D.5030109@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:46:21 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] ufd v1 - use unsequential O(1) fdmap
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Davide Libenzi wrote:
>> If randomizing each allocator is too expensive then randomize at the
>> very least the number of the first descriptor you give out.
>
> Can you tell me how this can be a problem, and in which way making a
> random thing would help?
In attacking an application every bit of known data can be used in an
exploit. Be it something as simple as having a predetermined value at a
certain point in the program since it loaded a file descriptor into a
register.
But what I'm mostly thinking about is the case where I/O could be
redirected. The intruding program could call dup2() and suddenly the
program wanting to write a password to disk could be directed to send it
over a socket. One could imagine countless such attacks.
I don't say such an attack exists today. But this is no reason to not
implement these extra security measures. The cost of a randomized star
base (offset from 2^30) should be zero.
- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGYyid2ijCOnn/RHQRAjRoAJ9XsAazZtc9V3AxaPjiNMjK8jPUZgCdG/Eg
KPug5Sq9REHd6H3AR0ax2aU=
=9iUM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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