linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Deter exploit bruteforcing

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]

Date:	Sat, 03 Jan 2015 00:00:22 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
CC:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
	DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, vdavydov@...allels.com,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Deter exploit bruteforcing

Am 02.01.2015 um 23:54 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Fri 2015-01-02 23:49:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2015, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>>>> You also want to protect against binaries that are evil on purpose,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> Umm. No. Not by default. We don't want to break crashme or trinity by
>>> default.
>>
>> I thought trinity is issuing syscalls directly (would make more sense than 
>> going through glibc, wouldn't it?) ... haven't checked the source though.
> 
> Patch in this thread wanted to insert delays into kernel on SIGSEGV
> processing. That's bad idea by default.

No. This is not what this patch does.

> But changing glibc to do sleep(30); abort(); instead of abort(); to
> slow down bruteforcing of canaries makes some kind of sense... and
> should be ok by default.

As I saidn only focusing one the specific stack canary case is not enough.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/