linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

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: <20080202221812.2f9d70a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:18:12 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linux Security Modules List 
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:01:51 -0800 "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org> wrote:

> Here is the very very long version (which took some time to write, and I
> thought was a bit much to spam these lists with):
> 
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~morgan/sendmail-capabilities-war-story.html

Thanks.  Imagine not testing the retrn value from something like setuid().
Oh well.  The reasoning for disabling it was good.

So how do we ever get to the stage where we can recommend that distributors
turn these things on, and have them agree with us?

Do we have sufficiently stern things in place to prevent them from turning
it on by accident?  Some of them are pretty gung-ho.
--
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/