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    [W:0.025 / U:0.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site