lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
Hi!

On Tue 18-04-06 13:13:03, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > If we heave the LSM stuff overboard, there's one thing that *will* need
> > addressing - what to do with kernel support of Posix-y capabilities. Currently
> > some of the heavy lifting is done by security/commoncap.c.
> >
> > Frankly, that's *another* thing that we need to either *fix* so it works right,
> > or rip out of the kernel entirely. As far as I know, there's no in-tree way
> > to make /usr/bin/ping be set-CAP_NET_RAW and have it DTRT.
> >
> This has actually been one of the interesting developments in AppArmor.
> I also had no use for POSIX.1e capabilities; I thought they were so
> awkward as to be useless. That is, until we integrated capabilities into
> AppArmor profiles.
>
> Consider this profile for /bin/stty
> /bin/stty {
> #include <abstractions/base>
>
> capability sys_tty_config,
>
> /bin/stty r,
> }
>
> This policy basically allows stty to run, read its own text file, and
> use the capability sys_tty_config. Even though it may run as root, this
> profile confines it to *only* have sys_tty_config.


What happens if I ln /bin/stty /tmp/evilstty, then exploit
vulnerability in stty?
Pavel
--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
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: 2006-04-22 21:20    [W:0.271 / U:2.936 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site