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:	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:59:15 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <>
To:	Joy Latten <>
Cc:	James Morris <>,
	David Miller <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:33 -0600, Joy Latten wrote:
> 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? 

Then what is the point of the 'result' field that we capture and log in
xfrm_audit_log if the only things you care to audit are successful
changes to the databases?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists