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  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, 22 Apr 2017 03:19:55 +0200
From:   Djalal Harouni <>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:     Kees Cook <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
        LSM List <>,
        Linux API <>,
        Dongsu Park <>,
        Casey Schaufler <>,
        James Morris <>,
        Paul Moore <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>, Jessica Yu <>,
        Rusty Russell <>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        belakhdar abdeldjalil <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules
 autoload restriction

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Djalal Harouni <> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
>>>> to prototype it.
>>> I don't like blocking a needed feature behind a large super-feature
>>> that doesn't exist yet. We'd be able to refactor this code into using
>>> such a thing in the future, so I'd prefer to move ahead with this
>>> since it would stop actual exploits.
>> I don't think the super-feature is so hard, and I think we should not
>> add the per-task thing the way it's done in this patch.  Let's not add
>> per-task things where the best argument for their security is "not
>> sure how it would be exploited".
> Actually the XFRM framework CVE-2017-7184 [1] is one real example, of
> course there are others. The exploit was used on a generic distro
> during a security contest that distro is Ubuntu. That distro will
> never provide a module autoloading restriction by default to not harm
> it's users. Consumers or containers/sandboxes then can run their
> confined apps using such facilities.
> These bugs will stay in embedded devices that use these generic
> distros for ever.

The DCCP CVE-2017-6074 exploit:

Well, pretty sure there is more... the bugs are real, as their
exploits. Anyway I think these features can coexist as they are
optional, and most process trees protections can get along by design.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists