linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Capabilities still can't be inherited by normal programs

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: <CALCETrUctrxm5Vy2WYXaQy3CyyJOGAQ78LYHbLzv+ua_rGxMDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:31:45 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...onical.com>,
	Markku Savela <msa@...h.iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Capabilities still can't be inherited by normal programs

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Casey Schaufler
<casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 10:12 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I think that the Windows approach is worth looking at.  See here:
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa375202%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
>>
>> In the Windows model, each capability ("privilege") can be in one of
>> three states: enabled (i.e working right now),
>
> Effective
>
>>  permitted (i.e.
>> available upon request but not currently enabled),
>
> Permitted
>
>> or removed
>> (disallowed to this process and all of its children).
>
> ~Inherited

No.  It's ~Inherited in a world where every binary has fI = everything.

>
>> Permitted
>> privileges are always inherited when a child process is created.
>>
>> This is *way* simpler than Linux's model, and it works just fine*.
>
> I see a different set of complications, and Windows never had
> a setuid bit to contend with. God created the universe in seven
> days, but then, He didn't have an installed base.
>

What are those complications?

Also, I think we really could get rid of setuid without breaking
anything with a bit of extra (non-capability-related) plumbing work.

--Andy

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/