On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:04:00AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > > What I'm saying is that the superuser can pretty much do whatever it
> > > takes to grab either your kerberos password (e.g. install a keyboard
> > > listener), a stored credential (read the contents of your kerberos
> > > on-disk credential cache), or s/he can access the cached contents of the
> > > file by hunting through /dev/kmem.
> > >
> > > IOW: There is no such thing as security on a root-compromised machine.
> >
> > And in theory a kernel could provide *some* guarantees against root,
> > right? (Is there some reason a unix-like kernel must provide such
> > things as /dev/kmem?)
>
> /dev/kmem was just an example -- IMHO differentiating between kernel and
> userspace from a security p.o.v. is always tricky. Like Trond said, there
> are very high number of ways in which privileged userspace can compromise
> a running kernel if it really wants to do that, root-is-God has always
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh and btw, note that we're talking of the (lack of) security of a
"running kernel" here -- because across reboots, there is /really/
*absolutely* no such thing as "kernelspace security" because the superuser
will simply switch the vmlinuz itself ...
> been *the* major problem with Unix :-)
>
> The only _real_ way a kernel can lock itself completely against malicious
> userspace involves trusted tamperproof hardware, but even that only if
> you can get yourself to believe such a thing exists in the first place ;-)
-
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]
