[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CD07242.8080509@hartkopp.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:19:14 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
security@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Security] [SECURITY] CAN info leak/minor heap overflow
On 02.11.2010 20:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is this bad? Can the addresses of CAN-BCM sock structs be used for
>>> anything from userspace?
>>>
>>> For me they are just intented to be unique numbers ...
>>>
>>
>> This is a bad idea because it makes exploiting other kernel
>> vulnerabilities easier. Exposing the address of an object in a slab
>> cache, especially an object that unprivileged users have some level of
>> control of, is just an invitation to use that structure when writing
>> exploits, for heap overflows or otherwise.
>
> Indeed. At the very least, hash them and truncate them with some
> secret per-boot value or something. Even better, use something like a
> socket number so that maybe they can be associated with
> /proc/<xyz>/fd/<x> or other system info if somebody were to care.
Good hint!
Will pick this idea.
Thanks,
Oliver
--
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