Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756177AbYBRFRh (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:17:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751838AbYBRFR1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:17:27 -0500 Received: from web36611.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.28]:23914 "HELO web36611.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751831AbYBRFR0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:17:26 -0500 X-YMail-OSG: p5gO.7MVM1mxYb33HoPRoLWj6.NQ3.Hzo_yWnJdvmeIH0YQVmO8cGgxoFOKF1k9g5WlPRAmI1Q-- X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:17:25 -0800 (PST) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: Possible problem in linux file posix capabilities To: "Serge E. Hallyn" , charles.kirsch@internet.lu Cc: serue@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morgan , lkml , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Gerald Combs , Gilbert Ramirez , Guy Harris In-Reply-To: <20080217224851.GA9168@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <728865.70879.qm@web36611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1375 Lines: 39 --- "Serge E. Hallyn" wrote: > .... > > Two quick fixes for you right now (apart from the one you've already > got :) would be > > 1. give wireshark cap_kill, by doing something like > > capset cap_kill=ep /bin/wireshark > > 2. compile a kernel with SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=n > > Andrew, this pretty much was bound to happen... we need to figure out > what our approach here should be. My preference is still to allow > signals when p->uid==current->uid so long as !SECURE_NOROOT. Then as > people start using secure_noroot process trees they at least must know > what they're asking for. > > An alternative stance is to accept these things as they come up and try > to quickly work with the authors of such programs to work around it. I > suppose in a security sense that's the superior way :) But it also > seems likely to lead to most people choosing option 2 above and not > bothering to fix the problem. I probably just missed it when it went by, but do you have some test cases for file capabilities lying about that I might use? Thank you. Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/