netdev - Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)

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]

Message-ID: <3e8340490912290901y60d7daf2w5778c25f44972955@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:01:39 -0500
From:	Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
	Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Quoting Bryan Donlan (bdonlan@...il.com):
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
>> > Eric, let me specifically point out a 'disable setuid-root'
>> > problem on linux: root still owns most of the system even when
>> > it's not privileged.  So does "disable setuid-root" mean
>> > we don't allow exec of setuid-root binaries at all, or that
>> > we don't setuid to root, or that we just don't raise privileges
>> > for setuid-root?
>>
>> I, for one, think it would be best to handle it exactly like the
>> nosuid mount option - that is, pretend the file doesn't have any
>> setuid bits set. There's no reason to deny execution; if the process
>> would otherwise be able to execute it, it can also copy the file to
>> make a non-suid version and execute that instead. And some programs
>> can operate with reduced function without setuid. For example, screen
>> comes to mind; it needs root to share screen sessions between multiple
>> users, but can operate for a single user just fine without root, and
>> indeed the latter is usually the default configuration.
>
> That's fine with me, seems safe for a fully unprivileged program to
> use, and would make sense to do through one of the securebits set
> with prctl(PR_SET_SECUREBITS).
>
> In addition, I assume we would also refuse to honor file capabilities?

Yes - essentially a one-time switch saying "never allow me to gain
capabilities again".
--
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