netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_condition: add security capability support

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1008231628010.21000@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:34:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...ia.com>
cc:	ext Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_condition: add security capability
 support


On Monday 2010-08-23 15:42, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>> >  /* Defaults, these can be overridden on the module command-line. */
>> >  static unsigned int condition_list_perms = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR;
>> >  static unsigned int condition_uid_perms = 0;
>> >  static unsigned int condition_gid_perms = 0;
>> > +static unsigned int condition_capabilities = CAP_NET_ADMIN;
>> >
>> It is strange that we set security policy in this way. Maybe the
>> permission of the proc file is enough in this case.
>
>Yes, that is another way to do it.  But in our device we use security
>capabilities more extensively than normal file permissions.  That's why
>we need this.
>
>If this is too restrictive (ie. having CAP_NET_ADMIN) for most users, we
>could change the default value to no capabilities needed.  Then we can
>set CAP_NET_ADMIN when loading the module.

But it looks as strange as the Yama code attempt. This is the one time 
where I would personally be looking into SELinux, or perhaps SMACK if 
the former is too complex, to whether _t'ing off procfs is possible.
--
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