Re: module's use of security_ops

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Fri Jun 08 2001 - 15:32:42 PDT

  • Next message: sarnoldat_private: "Re: module's use of security_ops"

    On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    
    > > 5)  For GODESSES'S SAKE, protect security_ops SOMEHOW, or this API is only 
    > >     e pluribus unum and vulnerable to "total replacement" from ANYWHERE
    > >     in kernel space. Provide a "non-functional copy", provide a module
    > >     check for revelation, SOMETHING.  The idea of a global export just 
    > >     seems to introduce too many new vulnerabilities.
    > 
    > As others have already said, this doesn't introduce any new
    > vulnerabilities.
    > 
    
    But it  DOES simplify the exploitation of a vulnerability.  I've already
    "signed off" on this, but feel compelled to point out that exposing the 
    security_ops structure DOES simplify any LKM's task if the code intends
    to "short circuit" security, even if only marginally.
     
    > --
    > Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    > ssmalleyat_private
    
    J. Melvin Jones
    
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
    ||  Software Developer
    ||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
    ||  Network and Systems Administration
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  http://www.jmjones.com/
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 15:33:41 PDT