linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

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: <52AAC35D.6060604@oracle.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:20:45 +0100
From:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

On 12/12/2013 08:06 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:52:24PM +0100, vegard.nossum@...cle.com wrote:
>> The idea is simple -- since different kernel versions are vulnerable to
>> different root exploits, hackers most likely try multiple exploits before
>> they actually succeed.
>
> Suppose we put put this into the mainstream kernel.  Wouldn't writers
> of root kit adapt by checking for the kernel version to avoid checking
> for exploits that are known not work?  So the question is whether the
> additional complexity in the kernel is going to be worth it, since
> once the attackers adapt, the benefits of trying to detect attacks for
> mitigated exploits will be minimal.

Yeah, you could probably avoid detection by being more careful. But I 
think it would be worth making it harder; I'd argue that the "additional 
complexity" in this case is minimal, since we are mostly talking about 
~1 line added to an error path for each critical vulnerability.


Vegard
--
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/