lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] kernel: make /proc/kallsyms mode 400 to reduce ease of attacking

    Putting aside the kallsyms patch (which is a tiny part of a fuller solution), i'd
    like to reply to this particular point:

    * Kyle Moffett <kyle@moffetthome.net> wrote:

    > (2) Most of the arguments about introducing "uncertainty" into the
    > hacking process are specious as well. [...]

    It is only specious if you ignore the arguments i made in the previous
    discussion. One argument i made was:

    Future trends are also clear: eventually, as more and more of our lives
    are lived on the network, home boxes are becoming more and more valuable.
    So i think concentrating on the psychology of the skilled attacker would
    not be unwise. YMMV.

    > [...] If a kernel bug is truly a
    > "workable" vulnerability then 99%+ of the attempts to exploit it would
    > be completely automated virii and computer worms that don't really
    > care what happens if they fail to compromise the system. Take a look
    > at the vast collection of sample code we have in the form of Windows
    > virii/trojans/worms/malware/etc; care to guess what portion of those
    > programs authors would shed a tear if their exploit horribly crashed
    > or generated vast amounts of audit spam for 70% of the computers it
    > executed on?

    ( You'd be a fool to think that even windows malware authors do not care
    whether they crash the target box. You do not get a botnet of 10 million PCs if
    you crash 99% of them. There is an analogous concept for this in biology: if a
    biological virus is _too_ deadly, it will never become a pandemic - because it has
    no time/chance to spread, they are 'detected' and 'defended against'. Virii like
    Ebola never spread widely, because they kill all their hosts. )

    More importantly, look forward and take a look at the really intelligent attacks,
    which are used against high-value targets with good defenses. Those real examples
    give us a glimpse into future techniques, even if you do not accept my arguments
    that come to a similar conclusion. Those attacks are all about avoiding detection.

    Thanks,

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-18 08:35    [W:0.027 / U:31.708 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site