From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@infradead.org,
randy.dunlap@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
andi@firstfloor.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: request_module vs. modprobe blacklist (and security subsystem implications)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:12:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m14opss03d.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1256137348.4443.39.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> (Eric Paris's message of "Wed\, 21 Oct 2009 11\:02\:28 -0400")
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> writes:
> I recently added a new LSM hook into __request_module(),
> security_kernel_module_request(). This new hook checks if a process
> should have permission to trigger the loading of a kernel module. The
> attack vector imagined was that some module (IPX for example) has a
> vulnerability. An attack program (which doesn't have permission to load
> the IPX module directly) might be able to get the networking stack to
> try to autoload the module. Once loaded the attack program could then
> use the larger surface area to exploit the kernel.
>
> We have found that many users disable the IPv6 module by setting their
> modprobe config to look like:
>
> blacklist ipv6
> install ipv6 /bin/true
They need to be using /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/*/disable_ipv6 instead.
As the above scenario keeps the bonding driver from loading.
Eric
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-22 1:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-21 15:02 request_module vs. modprobe blacklist (and security subsystem implications) Eric Paris
2009-10-21 19:11 ` Alan Jenkins
2009-10-21 19:27 ` Eric Paris
2009-10-21 21:00 ` Alan Jenkins
2009-10-22 5:56 ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-22 14:30 ` Eric Paris
2009-10-23 9:16 ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-23 14:23 ` Eric Paris
2009-10-23 14:59 ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-22 0:48 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-22 1:12 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
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=m14opss03d.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox