From: David Madore <david.madore@ens.fr>
To: Linux Kernel mailing-list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: patch to make Linux capabilities into something useful (v 0.3.1)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 00:51:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060908225118.GB877@clipper.ens.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060908105238.GB920@elf.ucw.cz>
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:52:39PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Well, you claim it is as safe as possible, and it is not quite.
I claim "safe enough". :-)
> I can bet someone will get the fork() case wrong:
>
> f = fork();
> kill(f);
>
> fork will return -1, and kill will kill _all_ the processes.
Someone who writes code like that deserves to get all his processes
killed. :-p fork() can fail for a million reasons, some of which, on
most systems, can be provoked by a malicious attacker (such as filling
all available process slots).
> If you can find another uid to hijack, that other uid has bad
> problems. And I do not think you'll commonly find another uid to
> hijack.
How about another gid, then? Should we reset all caps on sgid exec?
Ultimately a compromise is to be reached between security and
flexibility... The problem is, I don't know who should make the
decision.
> And there are easier ways to get out of jail with your proposed
> capabilities: you do not restrict ptrace, so you can just ptrace any
> other process with same uid, and hijack it.
That's true. The restrictions on process killing (which Serge
introduced) should probably be applied to ptrace() also.
> (You probably want to introduce CAP_REG_PTRACE).
Good idea. I did, in version 0.4.2.
> Or just remove CAP_REG_XUID_EXEC when removing any other CAP_REG...?
Doable, but ugly (or so I think): there are many paths that set
caps... A simpler solution would be to remove the test on
CAP_REG_SXID and instead test on all regular caps simultaneously.
Still, I really don't like the idea.
> It is not too bad; you'll usually not want restricted programs to exec
> anything setuid... (Do you have example where
> restricted-but-should-be-able-to-setuid-exec makes sense?)
Well, I could imagine that a paranoid sysadmin might want some users'
processes to run without this or that capability (perhaps
CAP_REG_PTRACE or some other yet-to-be-defined capability). This
doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to run a game which runs sgid
in order to write the score file.
--
David A. Madore
(david.madore@ens.fr,
http://www.madore.org/~david/ )
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-08 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-05 21:26 David Madore
2006-09-06 0:27 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-06 10:06 ` David Madore
2006-09-06 13:26 ` David Madore
2006-09-07 0:11 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-07 0:32 ` David Madore
2006-09-07 1:01 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-07 1:29 ` David Wagner
2006-09-07 16:00 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-07 18:33 ` David Wagner
2006-09-07 17:34 ` David Madore
2006-09-07 19:38 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-09-07 23:00 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-08 1:22 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-09-08 10:45 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-08 16:08 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-08 14:39 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-08 19:10 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-09-07 22:54 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-08 4:10 ` David Madore
2006-09-08 10:52 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-08 22:51 ` David Madore [this message]
2006-09-09 0:11 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-09 11:59 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-09 11:40 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-10 10:41 ` David Madore
2006-09-10 13:06 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-10 14:25 ` capability inheritance (was: Re: patch to make Linux capabilities into something useful (v 0.3.1)) David Madore
2006-09-10 22:42 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-11 16:00 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-11 17:39 ` David Madore
2006-09-09 0:59 ` patch to make Linux capabilities into something useful (v 0.3.1) David Wagner
2006-09-09 12:49 ` David Madore
2006-09-09 23:18 ` Theodore Tso
2006-09-10 10:13 ` David Madore
2006-09-10 12:36 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-10 23:24 ` Theodore Tso
2006-09-11 8:09 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-06 18:25 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-09-06 22:27 ` David Madore
2006-09-07 0:04 ` David Madore
2006-09-07 23:06 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-09-08 4:16 ` David Madore
2006-09-07 6:43 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-09-07 23:02 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-09-08 1:08 ` David Madore
2006-09-08 1:31 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-09-08 21:45 ` David Madore
2006-09-07 18:21 ` James Antill
2006-09-07 18:33 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-09-07 20:05 ` James Antill
2006-09-08 4:00 ` David Madore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060908225118.GB877@clipper.ens.fr \
--to=david.madore@ens.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®