[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal
    Richard Gooch writes ("Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal"):
    > Peter Benie writes:
    > > Richard Gooch writes ("Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal"):
    > > > Peter Benie writes:
    > > > > I don't actually see the point of implementing a read-only loopback
    > > > I guess you never notice the CERT security notices, then?
    > >
    > > Are you suggesting that on Linux, one user can write to another's
    > > files? (I'm assuming that people aren't stupid enough to have world
    > > writable files etc.) If so, that's a bug that should be fixed.
    > I'm pointing out that network servers are commonly attacked because
    > they have bugs in them. Some of these bugs allow crackers to write
    > files they shouldn't.

    If the server is running as one uid, and the file is owned by a
    different uid, then no amount of cracking will allow the server to
    write to the file (at least, not directly).

    A server might write to the file indirectly by exploiting bugs in
    privileged programs on the same machine. Chroot guards against most of
    those attacks.

    > Sometimes network servers have to run as root.

    For most network servers, the part that must run as root is very
    small. Many servers are misdesigned and run all their code as root,
    but read-only lofs is not a quick fix for that problem.

    > One of the most common bugs I see in CERT announcements is that some
    > or other server isn't preventing unauthorised writing to some file. A
    > read-only lofs offers strong protection against that.

    root can change the mount options for the loopback mount, or it can
    access /root/.rhosts, /etc/shadow etc. without going through the
    loopback mount. read-only loopback mounts offer no protection from
    programs running as root.

    Do you have any real applications for read-only loopback mounts that
    cannot be solved using conventional, portable techniques?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.021 / U:3.448 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site