Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1291510

Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant?

Show all headers | View raw

> Perhaps lets consider this in another way if it is strongly held that
> this is worth while in the default configuration: can it default off
> in the context of selinux / other security frameworks (preferably
> based on their detection and/or controllably settable at runtime)?
> Those allow more powerful and finer grain control and don't need this
> to be there as they already provide auditing on what operations and
> port numbers should be allowed by what programs.

That would be a regression and a very very bad one to have. The defaults
need to always be the same as before - or stronger and never go back
towards insecurity, otherwise they could make things less safe.

> Or how about letting port number concerns be handled by those security
> frameworks all together considering it is limited security?

There are already half a dozen different ways to handle it from xinetd
through setcap, to systemd spawning it, to iptables.

Alan
--
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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? Jason Newton <nevion@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 15:30 +0100
  Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2015-12-14 16:30 +0100
    Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? Jason Newton <nevion@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 17:20 +0100
      Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 19:40 +0100
      Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2015-12-14 20:50 +0100
        Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 21:20 +0100
        Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? Jason Newton <nevion@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 21:50 +0100
          Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? Jason Newton <nevion@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 16:00 +0100
            Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 18:10 +0100
            Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant? Jason Newton <nevion@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 20:10 +0100

csiph-web