Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:08:39 -0500 | From | Michael Stone <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] Security: Implement disablenetwork semantics. (v4) |
| |
Paraphrasing Kyle:
> Suppose there exist PAM modules which lazily fork background processes. Now > assume that one of those PAM modules is hooked from /etc/pam.d/su, that the > module fails closed when the network is unavailable, and that Mallory wins > the race to start the daemon. Boom.
I'm not disagreeing that there are configurations of programs, written for kernels without disablenetwork, which cease to be correct on kernels that provide it. However, all this says to me is that people who need to use those configurations probably shouldn't use disablenetwork. (Or that we haven't found exactly the right semantics for disablenetwork yet.)
Let's keep working on it.
Michael
| |