tech-security archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: [PATCH] fexecve

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:14:18PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 08:20:30PM +0100, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> > Thor Lancelot Simon <> wrote:
> > 
> > > The point is, this is interesting functionality that makes something
> > > new possible that is potentially useful from a security point of view,
> > > but the new thing that's possible also breaks assumptions that existing
> > > code may rely on to get security guarantees it wants.  
> > 
> > Well, it is standard mandated and we want to be standard compliant. If
> > it is a security hazard, we can have a sysctl to disable the system
> > call. Something like
> > sysctl -w kern.fexecve = 0 and it would return ENOSYS.
> Frankly, I still don't see the point why something would want to use it.

How about running a staticly linked executable inside a chroot without
needed the executable itself to do the chroot.

Oh, and now make $ORIGIN work for dynamic executables and fexec() :-)
(Probably not a good idea inside choots! At least you wouldn't want it
to work AFTER the initil program load.)


David Laight:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index