![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu) wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:20:10 PDT, Chris Wright said: > > > I think it still needs more work. Default behavoiur is changed, like > > Inheritble is full rather than clear, setpcap is enabled, etc. Also, > > why do you change from Posix the way exec() updates capabilities? Sure, > > there is no filesystem bits present, so this changes the calculation, > > but I'm not convinced it's as secure this way. At least with newcaps=0. > > The last time the "capabilities" thread reared its head a while ago, Andy made > a posting that pretty conclusively showed that the Posix way was totally b0rken > if you ever intended to support filesystem bits. So if you wanted to ever have > a snowball's chance of supporting something like: > > chcap cap_net_raw+ep /bin/ping It's still not clear that's what we want. For now, just being able to have the sucap equiv to sudo would be nice. And it's very uncomfortable to change mainline in subtle ways that could break security during stable series. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||