netdev - Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:33:11 -0600
From:	Joy Latten <latten@...tin.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, vyekkirala@...stedCS.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 01:39 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:

> 
> In either case though proper auditing needs to be addressed.  I see that
> the first patch from Joy wouldn't audit deletion failures.  It appears
> to me if the check is done per policy then the security hook return code
> needs to be recorded and passed to xfrm_audit_log instead of the hard
> coded 1 result used now.
> 
> Assuming we go with James's double loop what should we be auditing for a
> security hook denial?  Just audit the first policy entry which we tried
> to remove but couldn't and then leave the rest of the auditing in those
> functions the way it is now in case there was no denial, calling
> xfrm_audit_log with a hard coded 1 for the result?
> 
Actually, I thought the original intent of the ipsec auditing was to
just audit changes made to the SAD/SPD databases, not securiy hook
denials, right? 

Joy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html