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: <20120106073635.GC14188@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:36:35 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Federica Teodori <federica.teodori@...glemail.com>,
	Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2012.1] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories


* Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > * Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -1495,6 +1496,15 @@ static struct ctl_table fs_table[] = {
> >>  #endif
> >>  #endif
> >>       {
> >> +             .procname       = "protected_sticky_symlinks",
> >> +             .data           = &protected_sticky_symlinks,
> >> +             .maxlen         = sizeof(int),
> >> +             .mode           = 0644,
> >> +             .proc_handler   = proc_dointvec_minmax,
> >> +             .extra1         = &zero,
> >> +             .extra2         = &one,
> >> +     },
> >
> > Small detail:
> >
> > Might make sense to change the .mode to 0600, to make it 
> > harder for unprivileged attack code to guess whether this 
> > protection (and the resulting audit warning to the 
> > administrator) is enabled on a system or not.
> 
> Sure, I have no problem with that. In addition to this change, 
> what's the best next step for this patch?

Al and Linus's call I guess. Maybe ask Andrew whether he'd put 
it into -mm?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ