linux-kernel - Re: [QUESTION] Kprobes as a module?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 May 2012 10:48:06 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
To:	valdis.kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hyeoncheol Lee <cheol.lee@....com>
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Kprobes as a module?

Hi,

On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:52:15 -0400, valdis kletnieks wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 17:24:11 +0900, Namhyung Kim said:
>> Probably a dumb question :).
>> What prevents the kprobes from being built as a module? We want to use
>> the kprobes on our systems, but some guys worried about potential
>> security problems. So it'd be great if we can enable/load kprobes as
>> needed and then disable/unload after using it. Is it a possible senario?
>
> Any troublemaker who has the ability to set a kprobe would probably also
> have theability to just re-load the module before setting the kprobe (unless
> you go to a *lot* of trouble to compartmentalize the root user).
>
> So it's not clear there's a security benefit from making it a module.  If anything,
> it makes it *worse* because you can then surprise a sysadmin who *thought*
> they were running a KPROBES=n kernel by loading a module and turning it on...

Right, thanks for your comment.

Namhyung
--
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/