[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710242059500.17781@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:04:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To: Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
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 Oct 24 2007 19:59, Simon Arlott wrote:
>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.
Indeed.
There has been a feature in the security framework that probably did
not get much attention. It looks like YAGNI first, but on a closer look,
it becomes useful pretty quick - secondary_register.
As more and more simple LSM plugins pop up, stacking/chaining by means
of secondary_register becomes attractive again, especially if these LSMs
target different actions. This is probably the most useful thing why
the LSM interface should remain modular:
# Secure my files
modprobe apparmor
# -*- assuming apparmor implemented secondaries -*-
# Secure my ports
modprobe portac
# More rights to users
modprobe multiadm
# -*- whatever else comes along -*-
-
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