linux-kernel - Re: JIT emulator needs

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: <4679F14F.9050008@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:32:31 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>
CC:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: JIT emulator needs

Albert Cahalan wrote:
>>
>> That's fine.  That's a policy decision.  That's what a security policy
>> *is*.  The owner of the system has decided, by security policy, that
>> that is not allowed.  Bypassing that is not acceptable.
> 
> Fixing a bug should be acceptable.
> 

That's not what you're trying to do, though.  You're trying to change
the behaviour underneath the security policy.  If there is a bug, it's
in the security policy and that's where it needs to be changed.

> Look, let's back up a bit here. At a high level, what exactly do
> you imagine that this behavior was intended for? I suggest you
> list some examples of the attacks that are blocked.
> 
> Can you come up with a reasonable argument that the current behavior
> is the least painful restriction required to block those attacks?
> Does the current behavior block any attack that the proposed behavior
> would not? (list the attacks please)

See above.

	-hpa
-
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/