On 6/22/05, Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused why everything has to be remounted nosuid. I understand
> > enforcing synthetics to be mounted nosuid, but not the rest of the
> > file systems.
>
> It's related to the problem of a suid program accessing synthetic
> filesystem, and filesystem doing something bad to suid program (make
> it hang, supply bogus data ...). This can be solved by "squashing"
> suid for the whole namespace (basically the Plan 9 solution).
> Unfortunately this is not really practical in Linux/Unix.
>
Just to make sure I understand you - if I don't squash suid for the
entire name space, a user could mount a malicious synthetic (even with
NOSUID) and then launch an SUID app from an inherited mount which
would then traverse to the malicious synthetic.
That's a nasty case I hadn't considered before -- however, what's the
potential damage there? The user could hold up progress of the SUID
app that they launched, but that wouldn't necessarily impede system
progress since system-critical suid apps wouldn't be typically
launched by a user. I suppose there is the possibility that if
multiple instances of such an SUID app share a global lock you could
get into trouble -- do we have any concrete example apps that would
exhibit this kind of behavior?
Are there other vunerabilities that I'm missing?
-eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
