Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:21:58 -0600 (CST) | From | Aaron Ucko <> | Subject | Re: ideas for kernel 2.1 |
| |
>> *** Warning only the truly security PARANOIDs will like this *** >> >> Forcing registraction with a "machine assigned" magic cookie >> in each binary before it could access superuser functions in the >> kernel. With ever increasing security risks both system dependend >> and indepenend. For example rogue Java scripts and programs, >> viruses and the like specific to Linux (not that i have ever >> seen such an animal). >> >> The kernel would require machine dependent magic cookie to be >> registered before programs would be allowed to access to suser >> functions, The following are examples of programs that would >> require modifications to run in this secure invironment >> .i.e. fdformat, fdisk, setserial, etc. Once compiled the binaries >> would be stored in a secure place (a non-loaded floppy disk) > >Using securelevel and the immutable attribute of ext2 would solve >your problem without your suggestion's problems.
Better yet, isn't this the sort of thing POSIX.6 permissions were designed for? Just give each program the permissions it needs... (There's a mailing list for such discussion, but I can't remember the address. Sorry.)
-- Aaron Ucko (ucko@vax1.rockhurst.edu; finger for PGP public key) | httyp! "That's right," he said. "We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am." -- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ | Geek Code 3.1 [for explanation, finger hayden@mankato.msus.edu]: GCS/M/S/C d- s: a18 C++(+++)>++++ UL++>++++ P++ L++>+++++ E- W(-) N++(+) o+ K- w--- O M@ V-(--) PS++(+++) PE- Y(+) PGP(+) t(+) !5 X-- R(-) tv-@ b++(+++) DI+ !D-- G++(+++) e->+++++(*) h!>+ r-(--)>+++ y?
|  |