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: <200802030825.49221.ismail@pardus.org.tr>
Date:	Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:25:48 +0200
From:	Ismail Dönmez <ismail@...dus.org.tr>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
	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

At Sunday 03 February 2008 around 08:18:12 Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?

FWIW with my distributor hat on I think File system capabilities are very nice 
and enables one to ship a distribution with a small set of setuid binaries.

On the other hand for per-process securebits, it would be nice to see a 
complete example how it could be applied to a setuid program. That would be a 
nice step in moving forward.

Regards,
ismail

-- 
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.
--
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/