lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: thoughts on kernel security issues
* Linus Torvalds (torvalds@osdl.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > On Iau, 2005-01-13 at 16:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > It wouldn't be a global flag. It's a per-process flag. For example, many
> > > people _do_ need to execute binaries in their home directory. I do it all
> > > the time. I know what a compiler is.
> >
> > noexec has never been worth anything because of scripts. Kernel won't
> > load that binary, I can write a script to do it.
>
> Scripts can only do what the interpreter does. And it's often a lot harder
> to get the interpreter to do certain things. For example, you simply
> _cannot_ get any thread race conditions with most scripts out there, nor
> can you generally use magic mmap patterns.

I think perl has threads and some type of free form syscall ability.
Heck, with a legit elf binary and gdb you can get a long ways. But I
agree in two things. 1) It's all about layers, since there is no silver
bullet, and 2) Containment goes a long ways to mitigate damage.

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 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site