[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306429636.3857.3.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 13:07:16 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system
call filtering
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And if you filter system calls, it's entirely possible that you can
> attack suid executables through such a vector. Your "limit system
> calls for security" security suddenly turned into "avoid the system
> call that made things secure"!
>
> See what I'm saying?
So you are not complaining about this implementation, but the use of
syscall filtering?
There may be some user that says, "oh I don't want my other apps to be
able to call setuid" thinking it will secure their application even
more. But because that application did the brain dead thing to not check
the return code of setuid, and it just happened to be running
privileged, it then execs off another application that can root the box.
Because, originally that setuid would have succeeded if the user did
nothing special, but now with this filtering, and the user thinking that
they could limit their app from doing harm, they just opened up a hole
that caused their app to do the exact opposite and give the exec'd app
full root privileges.
Did I get this right?
-- Steve
--
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