Re: [patch 2/2] ufd v1 - use unsequential O(1) fdmap

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >> If randomizing each allocator is too expensive then randomize at the
> >> very least the number of the first descriptor you give out.
> > 
> > Can you tell me how this can be a problem, and in which way making a 
> > random thing would help?
> 
> In attacking an application every bit of known data can be used in an
> exploit.  Be it something as simple as having a predetermined value at a
> certain point in the program since it loaded a file descriptor into a
> register.
> 
> But what I'm mostly thinking about is the case where I/O could be
> redirected.  The intruding program could call dup2() and suddenly the
> program wanting to write a password to disk could be directed to send it
> over a socket.  One could imagine countless such attacks.
> 
> I don't say such an attack exists today.  But this is no reason to not
> implement these extra security measures.  The cost of a randomized star
> base (offset from 2^30) should be zero.

Randomizing the base is not a problem. Should this be always, or flag 
driven?



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/