lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: request_module vs. modprobe blacklist (and security subsystem implications)
Date
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:53:50 am Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 19:46 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:00:22 am Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > If a userspace program tries some security exploit that has been closed, do
> > > > you want to warn about it? Because that seems to be the question here.
> > >
> > > I say yes. Knowing that malicious activity is taking place, even if it
> > > didn't hurt anything is useful.
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Your proposal is troubling for three reasons:
> >
> > 1) You would disable logging for things you actually want logged.
>
> I would?

Yep, admin disables loading of ipx to prevent hole. Now, you no longer get
logging notification.

> > 2) What *actually* happens when ssh tries to load ipv6 is that
> > "modprobe net-pf-10" gets called.
> > 3) Containing modprobe behavior in one set of config files is really nice.
>
> It is it also means that we, somewhat regularly call userspace
> needlessly and there is nothing an admin can do to stop it.

Yes, but that's nothing to do with SELinux; we exec modprobe for no effect.
Yet I've yet to see a report that this is a performance issue. These brains
are in userspace for a reason.

> But it appears you disagree that fixing that problem is worth it, and I
> don't feel strongly enough to keep arguing :)

But we have learnt something, at least!

Cheers,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-23 17:03    [W:0.071 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site