linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Security: Add prctl(PR_{GET,SET}

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]

Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:02:05 +0000 (UTC)
From:	daw@...berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Security: Add prctl(PR_{GET,SET}_NETWORK) interface.

Stephen Hemminger  wrote:
>Michael Stone <michael@...top.org> wrote:
>>    5. Linux today has pretty good support for controlling the creation of
>>       channels involving the filesystem and involving shared daemons. It has
>>       mediocre support for access control involving sysv-ipc
>mechanisms. It has
>>       terrible support for access control involving non-local principals like
>>       "the collection of people and programs receiving packets sent to
>>       destination 18.0.0.1:80 from source 192.168.0.3:34661".
>
>The policy control for this is done today on linux via the firewalling
>infrastructure.

I don't know of any reasonable way to introduce firewall rules
that apply only to a specific process; nor do I know of any way
for a user-level (non-root) process to specify and apply such
rules.  So it doesn't sound to me like the firewalling infrastructure
meets the requirements for which this patch was introduced.  Or did
I miss something?
--
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/