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.2.01.1008232052170.31619@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:58:05 +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 20:45, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>> But it looks as strange as the Yama code attempt.
>
>What is so strange about it? Is it because it's possible to set the
>capability requirement from modprobe arguments? The capability check
>already exists in at least in nfnetlink, where it checks for received
>messages for the CAP_NET_ADMIN capability.  Is it strange because we're
>checking for the capability when someone tries to write to a file?

It is strange that you check this capability from a module focused on
packet handling. For lack of a better example, it's as if you tried
to check the uid of the file, the latter of which is better left to
the routines in fs/.

>>  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.
>
>Yeah, but it's not up to me to decide this.  We have one entire team
>dedicated to figuring out how to ensure "security" in our device.  It
>was that team who advised us to protect this file by checking for
>CAP_NET_ADMIN.

You can do whatever you want with your product. I am just saying this
does not look like kernel material, and I suppose it won't go well
with the maintainers up the chain either.
--
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