Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:06:36 +0800 From: Shawn <citypw@...il.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: How GNU/Linux distros deal with offset2lib attack? Hi Greg, On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 10:43:17PM +0800, Shawn wrote: >> Hi Lionel, >> >> Thanks for your extraordinary explanation about Grsec/PaX. I'm a big >> fan of Grsec/PaX. But I think compare the ASLR implementation of >> vallina kernel with Grsecurity/PaX is not fair. Linux upstream doesn't >> hold the security-oriented philosophy, while Grsecurity/PaX community >> are expertise of system-lvl security. > > Ok, do you seriously think this? If so, please provide details as to > why you feel this way. The Linux kernel developers take security very > seriously, otherwise no one would be using Linux for "secure" systems, > right? > Like Lionel explained in last reply, the term *security* has different meaning in the different context. Don't give me wrong, I love GNU/Linux( GCC/GLIBC/KERNEL), which are fundamentals of the FOSS ecosystem. I've been always telling my customers/friends that GNU/Linux( with vanilla kernel) is more secure than M$-windows. But Grsecurity/PaX is the must-need stuff to those who has some digital assets in a critical scene. >> Developer/users could take bear of 5%-10% performance penalty caused >> by new features, but I don't think most developers/users would accept >> even 1% performance penalty caused by security defensive mitigation. >> Personally, I hope we could see Grsecurity/PaX being part of mainline >> linux kernel in the future. > > Great, please do the work to split it up and submit it to be merged, > that would be a wonderful thing for you to do if you think the features > there are needed. > I wish I could. Debian/Mempo or hardened-Gentoo can satisfy my daily bread. >> IMOHO, offset2lib is a very critical impact to the GNU/Linux >> mitigation. What if the bad buys already have some 0day vulns? This >> will make their work so much easier to write massive exploit. Hope >> upstream could patch this issue as quickly as possible. Plz don't let >> this work to the burden of GNU/Linux distro community. > > What exactly do you mean here? The fact that this option isn't enabled > by lots of distros already means that there isn't much of an issue, > right? > Do you think the mitigations of NX+ASLR+PIE+STACK CANARY can be defeated in a few seconds is not a big deal? What do you mean about "this option isn't enabled"? The most of suid programs has been shipped with these mitigations: NX/ASLR/PIE/STACK CANARY/FORTIFY...some are compiled with RELRO. What I mean is this issue should be fixed by the upstream, not let distro community to maintain a tiny patch. > thanks, > > greg k-h -- GNU powered it... GPL protect it... God blessing it... regards Shawn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.