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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:58:03 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, dhowells@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org, adilger@....com, mtk.manpages@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, drepper@...il.com, jamie@...reable.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 resend] vfs: new O_NODE open flag On Fri 2009-11-06 12:55:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> writes: > > > On Thu 2009-11-05 15:27:06, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > > - re-opening normally after checking file type (there's a debate > >> > > whether this would have security issues, but currently we do allow > >> > > re-opening with increased permissions thorugh /proc/*/fd) > >> > > >> > Which has already been demonstrated to be an (unfixed) security hole. > >> > >> No it hasn't :) Jamie theorized that there *might* be a real world > >> situation where the application writer didn't anticipate this > >> behavior. But as to actual demonstration, we have not seen one yet, I > >> think. > > > > See bugtraq, or lkml thread about symlinks with permissions. There's > > demo script there. > > Exactly a theoretical discussion, that demonstrates user space > applications with security holes can be written if they make > assumptions about the world that are not true. > > So far no one who believes this to be a security hole has found it > worth their while to look at nd->intent.open in proc_pid_follow_link > and write a patch. Pavel you started out asking for help on how > to do that and I think I have answered the original question. > I am tired of the whining. If no one who is persuaded the kernel is > wrong can be bothered to write a possibly buggy 5 line patch this is > clearly not a security hole. "I did not get a patch so it can't be security hole". Interesting. I still hope to write it one day, but as I do not have untrusted users on my systems, it is not particulary urgent. (And I still hope distro security people do they job.) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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