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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3e8340491001101541tc776ad9r887be13393bcb7fd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:41:10 -0500 From: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com> To: Michael Stone <michael@...top.org> Cc: Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>, 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>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, 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>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Security: Implement disablenetwork semantics. (v4) On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Michael Stone <michael@...top.org> wrote: > Paraphrasing Kyle: > >> Suppose there exist PAM modules which lazily fork background processes. >> Now >> assume that one of those PAM modules is hooked from /etc/pam.d/su, that >> the >> module fails closed when the network is unavailable, and that Mallory wins >> the race to start the daemon. Boom. > > I'm not disagreeing that there are configurations of programs, written for > kernels without disablenetwork, which cease to be correct on kernels that > provide it. However, all this says to me is that people who need to use > those > configurations probably shouldn't use disablenetwork. (Or that we haven't > found > exactly the right semantics for disablenetwork yet.) With the semantics given, the choice for using disablenetwork is given to the unprivileged process, not to the administrator or privileged process, so people using these configurations have no choice - the malicious local user can just use it anyway. I still think requiring a drop of suid abilities would be best - if the suid process wants to run in a no-network environment it can still disablenetwork itself. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists