Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>The problem with the disable_network semantics you want
>>is that they allow you to perform a denial of service attack
>>on privileged users.  An unprivileged DOS attack is unsuitable
>>for a general purpose feature in a general purpose kernel.
>
> I'm not persuaded yet.

I won't try hard to persuade you if you drop me off the cc list.

> When you talk about DOS, let's be a bit more precise.  disablenetwork
> gives a way to deny setuid programs access to the network.  It's not a
> general-purpose DOS; it's denying access to the network only.  And the
> network is fundamentally unreliable.  No security-critical mechanism
> should be relying upon the availability of the network.

The audit daemon should not rely on netlink?

> So while I certainly can't rule out the possibility that disablenetwork
> might introduce minor issues, I think there are fundamental reasons to
> be skeptical that disablenetwork will introduce serious new security
> problems.

For me the case is simple.  I have seen several plausible sounding
scenarios that get most of the way there.  I know I am stupid when
it comes to security and that people exploiting problems are going
to be looking harder than I will.  Therefore I think there is
a reasonable chance this will introduce a security hole for someone.

Eric