Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:19:04 PDT, Crispin Cowan said:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > In other words, it's quite possible to accidentally introduce a vulnerability
> > that wasn't exploitable before, by artificially restricting the privs in a way
> > the designer didn't expect.  So this is really just handing the sysadmin
> > a loaded gun and waiting.
> >   
> While that is true of the voluntary model of acquiring and dropping
> privs, it is not true of AppArmor containment, which will just not give
> you the priv if it is not in your policy.

The threat model is that you can take a buggy application, and constrain its
access to priv A in a way that causes a code failure that allows you to abuse
an unconstrained priv B.

Attachment: pgpMnuYp1gZki.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: "Ken Brush" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC] packet/socket owner match (fireflier) using skfilter
    • From: Török Edwin <[email protected]>
  • [RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    • From: Török Edwin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    • From: Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    • From: Török Edwin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    • From: Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    • From: Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: James Morris <[email protected]>
  • Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
  • Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: Crispin Cowan <[email protected]>
  • Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    • From: Crispin Cowan <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [libata] atapi_enabled problem
• Next by Date: Re: Which process is associated with process ID 0 (swapper)
• Previous by thread: Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
• Next by thread: Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]