Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

On 24/10/07 19:51, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 24 2007 19:11, Simon Arlott wrote:
>>
>>* (I've got a list of access rules which are scanned in order until one of 
>>them matches, and an array of one bit for every port for per-port default 
>>allow/deny - although the latter could be removed.
>>http://svn.lp0.eu/simon/portac/trunk/)
> 
> Besides the 'feature' of inhibiting port binding,
> is not this task of blocking connections something for a firewall?

The firewall blocks incoming connections where appropriate, yes, but it 
doesn't stop one user binding to a port that another user expected to be able 
to use. "Ownership" of ports (1-1023) shouldn't be something only root (via 
CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) has. Lots of services also don't have standard ports 
below 1024 and it's useful to be able to prevent users from binding to them 
too.

-- 
Simon Arlott
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: James Morris <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: "Simon Arlott" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Simon Arlott <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Next by Date: Re: CONFIG_XEN dependencies
• Previous by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Next by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• 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]