On Oct 24 2007 19:59, Simon Arlott wrote:
>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.
Indeed.
There has been a feature in the security framework that probably did
not get much attention. It looks like YAGNI first, but on a closer look,
it becomes useful pretty quick - secondary_register.
As more and more simple LSM plugins pop up, stacking/chaining by means
of secondary_register becomes attractive again, especially if these LSMs
target different actions. This is probably the most useful thing why
the LSM interface should remain modular:
# Secure my files
modprobe apparmor
# -*- assuming apparmor implemented secondaries -*-
# Secure my ports
modprobe portac
# More rights to users
modprobe multiadm
# -*- whatever else comes along -*-
-
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]
