linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name

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: <2652562.S2IH3gqS0u@sifl>
Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:02:33 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	aviro@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name

On Monday, October 20, 2014 06:47:27 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 16:25 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 02, 2014 11:06:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > This is a part of Peter Moody, my and Eric Paris' work to implement
> > > audit by executable name.
> > 
> > Does this patch set define an AUDIT_VERSION_SOMETHING and then set
> > AUDIT_VERSION_LATEST to it? If not, I need one to tell if the kernel
> > supports it when issuing commands. Also, if its conceivable that kernels
> > may pick and choose what features could be backported to a curated
> > kernel, should AUDIT_VERSION_ be a number that is incremented or a bit
> > mask?
> 
> Right now the value is 2. So this is your last hope if you want to make
> it a bitmask. I'll leave that up to paul/richard to (over) design.

Audit is nothing if not over-designed.  I want to make sure we're consistent 
with the previous design methodologies ;)

I've been thinking about this for about the past half-hour while I've been 
going through some other mail and I'm not really enthused about using the 
version number to encode capabilities.  What sort of problems would we have if 
we introduced a new audit netlink command to query the kernel for audit 
capabilities?

-- 
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat

--
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/