[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141116034005.GC5507@thunk.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:40:06 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] groups: Allow unprivileged processes to use
setgroups to drop groups
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 06:35:05PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >So arbitrarily anyone to drop groups from their supplemental group
> >list will result in a change from both existing practice and legacy
> >Unix systems, and it could potentially lead to a security exposure.
>
> As Andy pointed out, you can already do that with a user namespace,
> for any case not involving a setuid or setgid (or otherwise
> privilege-gaining) program. And requiring no_new_privs handles
> that.
Well, it's no worse than what we can do already with the user
namespace, yes. I'm still worried it's going to come as a surprise
for some configurations because it's a change from what was allowed
historically. Then again, pretty much all of the tripwire and rootkit
scanners won't notice a "setuid" program that uses capabilities
instead of the traditional setuid bit, and most sysadmins won't think
to check for an executable with a forced capability mask, so this
isn't exactly a new problem....
- Ted
--
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