lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds
Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > Actually a _lot_ of people run the non-excutable stack and related
> > patches. They don't break anything,
>
> They DO break things. There are languages that by design use the stack for
> trampolines etc, and at least if somebody applies the unofficial patch
> they have themselves to blame.
>
> The "stack is non-executable" patch is not going to be in the standard
> kernel, with or without a config option.
>
> Linus
>

Is that realy necisary ?!
My opinion is that security is of grate matter for the Linux comunity,. what
about
have some flags for it ? A system call line chroot() but called
no_stackexec() or
something like that. This gives the userlevel programmers the oprtunity to
fix there
problems. And with a LD_PRELOAD a this could be called to almost any binary
that
is written in C-like language. But there is other things to. Is there any
reason why
we cant have enuc processes ? Processes that can't have child in the same way
as
chroot() It a oneway ticket. Or maybe litte smarter with an argument.
that is "number of child that can have child" ala ttl. The function should
modify
all the exec and clone function in some smart way...
Is there any good reason not to have it ?

>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
>
>

--
foo!


begin:vcard
n:Enderborg;Peter
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:
adr:
version:2.1
email;internet:pme@ufh.se
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Peter Enderborg
end:vcard

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.035 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site