Subject: Re: protecting processes
To: Christos Zoulas <christos@zoulas.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com>
List: tech-security
Date: 07/13/1999 12:41:29
christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> In article <199907110925.TAA13225@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au>,
> Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >An interesting idea raised elsewhere was that of protecting process's
> >from external influences (such as signals) for some given security
> >level.  Quickly thinking on this, what I think would work was having
> >a sysctl flag, which was a set-only for securelevel >= 0, that allowed
> >proceses to block/ignore/handle SIGKILL and SIGSTOP in addition to the
> >normal cast of signals.  Also, being able to protect select processes,
> >in general, from ptrace() might be useful.
> >
> >Comments ?
> 
> In the end what you really want is a capability based system... 

Certainly adding five thousand little hacks isn't as good as coming up 
with a more generic mechanism, yes.

Perry