Ar Llu, 2006-08-07 am 22:52 +0000, ysgrifennodd David Wagner:
> I'm still trying to understand the semantics of this proposed
> frevoke() implementation. Can an attacker use this to forcibly
> close some other processes' file descriptor? Suppose the target
No.
> process has fd 0 open and the attacker revokes the file corresponding
> to fd 0; what is the state of fd 0 in the target process? Is it
> closed? If the target process then open()s another file, does it
No its revoked. Just like a tty hangup
> get bound to fd 0? (Recall that open() always binds to the lowest
> unused fd.) If the answers are "yes", then the security consequences
> seem very scary.
Of course it doesn't. The BSD folk who added revoke were security people
not idiots.
Alan
-
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]
