On Oct 24, 2007, at 17:37:04, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
quoted text > The scariest thing to consider is programs which don't
> appropriately handle failure. So I don't know, maybe the system
> runs a remote logger to which the multiadm policy gives some extra
> privs, but now the portac module prevents it from sending its
> data. And maybe, since the authors never saw this failure as
> possible, the program happens to dump sensitive data in a public
> readable place. I *could* be more vague but it'd be tough :) But
> you get the idea.
Well, there *was* that problem with sendmail where it did not
properly check the result of setuid() and just assumed it had
succeeded. So instead of running as "smtpd" it was running as
"root". Not a happy memory.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ... , Kyle Moffett , (Wed Oct 24, 8:50 pm)