linux-kernel - Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant?

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: <20151214193954.10f3b0fc@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:39:54 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Jason Newton <nevion@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant?

> Perhaps lets consider this in another way if it is strongly held that
> this is worth while in the default configuration: can it default off
> in the context of selinux / other security frameworks (preferably
> based on their detection and/or controllably settable at runtime)?
> Those allow more powerful and finer grain control and don't need this
> to be there as they already provide auditing on what operations and
> port numbers should be allowed by what programs.

That would be a regression and a very very bad one to have. The defaults
need to always be the same as before - or stronger and never go back
towards insecurity, otherwise they could make things less safe.

> Or how about letting port number concerns be handled by those security
> frameworks all together considering it is limited security?

There are already half a dozen different ways to handle it from xinetd
through setcap, to systemd spawning it, to iptables.

Alan
--
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/