[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471F9603.9080308@simon.arlott.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:59:15 +0100
From: Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>,
Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...ian.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static
interface)
On 24/10/07 19:51, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 24 2007 19:11, Simon Arlott wrote:
>>
>>* (I've got a list of access rules which are scanned in order until one of
>>them matches, and an array of one bit for every port for per-port default
>>allow/deny - although the latter could be removed.
>>http://svn.lp0.eu/simon/portac/trunk/)
>
> Besides the 'feature' of inhibiting port binding,
> is not this task of blocking connections something for a firewall?
The firewall blocks incoming connections where appropriate, yes, but it
doesn't stop one user binding to a port that another user expected to be able
to use. "Ownership" of ports (1-1023) shouldn't be something only root (via
CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) has. Lots of services also don't have standard ports
below 1024 and it's useful to be able to prevent users from binding to them
too.
--
Simon Arlott
-
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