netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xtables: lightweight process control group matching

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: <526543A2.2040901@monom.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:09:22 +0100
From:	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	pablo@...filter.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xtables: lightweight process control
 group matching

Hi Daniel

On 10/19/2013 08:16 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/19/2013 01:21 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> I am coming to this late.  But two concrete suggestions.
>>
>> 1) process groups and sessions don't change as frequently as pids.
>>
>> 2) It is possible to put a set of processes in their own network
>>     namespace and pipe just the packets you want those processes to
>>     use into that network namespace.  Using an ingress queueing filter
>>     makes that process very efficient even if you have to filter by port.
>
> Actually in our case we're filtering outgoing traffic, based on which
> local socket that originated from; so you wouldn't need all of that
> construct. Also, you wouldn't even need to have an a-prio knowledge of
> the application internals regarding their use of particular use of ports
> or protocols. I don't think that such a setup will have the same
> efficiency, ease of use, and power to distinguish the application the
> traffic came from in such a lightweight, protocol independent and easy way.

Sorry for beeing late as well (and also stupid question)

Couldn't you use something from the LSM? I mean you allow the
application to create the socket etc and then block later
the traffic originated from that socket. Wouldn't it make
more sense to block early?

cheers,
daniel

--
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