netdev - IP_TRANSPARENT requires CAP_NET_ADMIN

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHo-Ooz-0wt4-3oXZBeEmLTSom5qUxhXhP4MDUrSz322OTGa9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:45:54 -0700
From:	Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:	Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: IP_TRANSPARENT requires CAP_NET_ADMIN - why?

Hi,

I'm curious why transparent sockets [setsockopt(IP{,V6}_TRANSPARENT),
ie. inet_sk(sk)->transparent bit] require CAP_NET_ADMIN privileges.

Wouldn't CAP_NET_RAW be more appropriate?

Looks to me like CAP_NET_RAW is all about raw sockets.
Transparent sockets are dangerous because they effectively allow spoofing.
But this seems to be the same sort of thing that CAP_NET_RAW protects
against.

Is there something I'm missing?
Is there any reason why having CAP_NET_RAW privs shouldn't allow one
to set the transparent bit on a socket?

Would people be opposed to relaxing the check on setting sk->transparent
to be either CAP_NET_ADMIN or CAP_NET_RAW?

Thanks,
Maciej
--
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