linux-kernel - Re: AppArmor Security Goal

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: <p73tzntzuak.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date:	Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:04:35 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM ML <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	apparmor-dev <apparmor-dev@...ge.novell.com>
Subject: Re: AppArmor Security Goal

Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com> writes:

The document should be a good base for a merge.

>     * A confined process can operate on a file descriptor passed to it
>       by an unconfined process, even if it manipulates a file not in the
>       confined process's profile. To block this attack, confine the
>       process that passed the file descriptor.

That is the only thing that tripped me up a bit while reading the document.
Can you expand a bit on the reasons why the fd is not rechecked in
the context of the target process? Best do it in a new version of the
document.

-Andi
-
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/