lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Leaking path for set_task_comm

> Trying to depend on task name for anything security sensitive is at
> _really_ bad idea, so it seems unlikely that a LSM would want to
> protect the process name. (And if they did, the first thing I would
> ask is "Why? What are you trying to do? Do you realize how many
> *other* ways the process name can be spoofed or otherwise controlled
> by a potentially malicious user?")

Two processes that should not be able to otherwise communicate can keep
changing their name to a chunk of data, waiting for an ack flag name
change back.

Alan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-28 09:43    [W:0.049 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site