[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:23:26 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Eric
Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan
<adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to
/proc/interrupts
> /proc/{interrupts,stat} are 0444, which may be used by local attacker to
> learn statistical information about user's keystrokes, including the
> passwords.
So the distro can chmod it 0400
> /dev/pts/* and /dev/tty* leak the same timing information in inode's
> atime and mtime.
That one is trickier. I don't think it is a real leak because the last
update timing info is in seconds granularity so is pretty useless for
that. The atime/mtime behaviour is however required ABI and used by
applications so can't simply go away.
> Do we want to restrict permissions of interrupts/stat and remove atime
> and mtime from ttys and relax these permissions when revoke() is introduced?
revoke makes no difference I can see to either of these, they appear to
be a completely unrelated discussion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
