From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4CB34031.5090505@domain.hid> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:49:53 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4CB33738.206@domain.hid> <4CB338AB.3070803@domain.hid> <4CB339F9.5080202@domain.hid> <4CB33F04.3000600@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4CB33F04.3000600@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] Xenomai and capabilities List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" Jan Kiszka wrote: > Am 11.10.2010 18:23, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> enabling the Xenomai watchdog should provide a reasonably safe&secure >>> environment. >> AFAIK, the BIG FAT warning at the bottom of this page still applies. You >> can make an environment with no hardware lockups, but secure, I do not >> think so. We do not know how Xenomai APIs could be exploited for a >> non-root user to become root. > > For sure, no one audited the interface for security so far. There is no > hole in design that comes to my mind ATM, but I would be surprised as > well if you couldn't develop any exploit for some bug or missing check. > Still, there is a huge difference between giving anyone root access and > confining Xenomai access this way. I was just reacting to "reasonably secure". The experience proves that if you do not do any particular effort for security, then your code is not secure. Not even reasonably. -- Gilles.