On Oct 24, 2007, at 17:37:04, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
The scariest thing to consider is programs which don't appropriately handle failure. So I don't know, maybe the system runs a remote logger to which the multiadm policy gives some extra privs, but now the portac module prevents it from sending its data. And maybe, since the authors never saw this failure as possible, the program happens to dump sensitive data in a public readable place. I *could* be more vague but it'd be tough :) But you get the idea.
Well, there *was* that problem with sendmail where it did not properly check the result of setuid() and just assumed it had succeeded. So instead of running as "smtpd" it was running as "root". Not a happy memory.
Cheers, Kyle Moffett - 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/
- References:
- 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]>
- 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]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: "David P. Quigley" <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Prev by Date: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?
- Next by Date: Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 3/5] Export acpi_check_resource_conflict]
- 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):
 |