All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: severe security issue on dom0/xend/xm/non-root users
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:33:26 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <423B8F76.9060602@blueyonder.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <423A9D38.9080601@tv.debian.net>

Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> Kurt Garloff wrote:
> 
>> The frontend (that would acquire the privileged socket) would need
>> to be setuid root for this and then could enforce whatever policies,
>> much more flexible than the Unix group membership model if you want.
> 
> Oh, the group-restricted UNIX domain socket wins there, too.
> 
> Your model:
> 
>   - setuid client that only lets certain users open ports <1024
> 
> My model:
> 
>   - setgid client that only lets certain users connect to the protected
>     socket
> OR
>   - just add the certain users to the group, and let them access the
>     protected socket.
> 
> The UNIX domain socket way is both more flexible and _more secure_
> -- it only needs setgid where the port<1024 thing needs setuid.

Agree 100%. There are no advantages to the port<1024 method over using
Unix domain sockets.

Kurt Garloff wrote:
> You're very flexible in your setuid root client.
> 
> 1. You may restrict the set of users that is able to call the client,
>    e.g. it might be root:trusted 4750. This would impose the same 
>    restrictions as your group protection mechanism. 
> 2. The first thing the client does it to acquire the privileged 
>    port and then drop capabilities immediately afterwards. Security
>    flaws in the client will thus at most grant the exploiter a
>    privileged socket. (This has nothing to do with xen, just a
>    general rule for setuid root apps.)
> 3. The client can impose whatever restrictions it likes, e.g.
>    checking SSL certificates, asking for passwords, checking
>    a configuration file, whatever.

You can 1 and 3 just as easily with the Unix domain socket method.
Although you could also do 2, there's no need (2 is not a flexibility
advantage, it's just something you have to do to make the port<1024
method secure).

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk>



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-03-19  2:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-03-04 17:23 severe security issue on dom0/xend/xm/non-root users Adam Heath
2005-03-04 19:01 ` Anthony Liguori
2005-03-04 19:19   ` Rich Persaud
2005-03-04 19:47     ` Anthony Liguori
2005-03-04 19:39       ` Adam Heath
2005-03-04 19:56       ` Bastian Blank
2005-03-05 21:53         ` Rik van Riel
2005-03-05 22:28           ` Bastian Blank
2005-03-06 15:14           ` Tommi Virtanen
2005-03-06 21:14             ` Rik van Riel
2005-03-13 14:55               ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-13 16:00                 ` Rik van Riel
2005-03-13 17:09                   ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-13 21:39                 ` David Hopwood
2005-03-13 21:51                   ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-14 14:58                     ` Philip R Auld
2005-03-14 15:16                       ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-14 15:54                         ` Philip R Auld
2005-03-14 16:13                           ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-14 16:44                             ` Anthony Liguori
2005-03-17  6:46                             ` Tommi Virtanen
2005-03-17 15:02                               ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-18  9:19                                 ` Tommi Virtanen
2005-03-18  9:31                                   ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-18 11:59                                     ` Tommi Virtanen
2005-03-19 11:21                                       ` Nuutti Kotivuori
2005-03-19  2:33                                   ` David Hopwood [this message]
2005-03-19  6:29                                     ` Anthony Liguori
2005-03-05  3:14       ` David Hopwood
2005-03-05  7:54         ` Anthony Liguori
2005-03-04 19:35   ` Adam Heath
2005-03-04 19:54     ` Anthony Liguori
2005-03-04 19:47       ` Rich Persaud
2005-03-04 23:19       ` Nicholas Lee
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-03-13 17:17 Ian Pratt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=423B8F76.9060602@blueyonder.co.uk \
    --to=david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.