Re: Kernel Security Extensions USENIX BOF Summary

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Fri Jul 06 2001 - 08:19:16 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: Kernel Security Extensions USENIX BOF Summary"

    On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:14:11 PDT, Crispin Cowan <crispinat_private>  said:
    
    > How about if modules that want reliable absolute paths just disable the
    > horrible abomination known as multiple mount points?
    
    This only works if you can guarantee that a multiple mount would in fact
    be *multiple*.  If an attacker can manage to force an umount() or get
    control before the file system is mounted (which may be easy if the file
    system is one that is unmounted when not in use), and can get a mount
    of the file system to some OTHER mount point, you have a problem.
    
    Yes, I know that if an attacker can do mount/unmount, you're in trouble
    already - but it sounds like the requirement is for "be able to protect a
    critical file *even if* the system has been partially subverted".
    
    If I'm missing the point, I'm sure I'll be adequately flamed for it ;)
    -- 
    				Valdis Kletnieks
    				Operating Systems Analyst
    				Virginia Tech
    
    
    
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 06 2001 - 08:20:26 PDT