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

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #108714

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 03:41:58PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:

> That still potentially exposes insecure code to untrusted data, just in
> a user context rather than a kernel context. The same goes for uml +
> fuse + namespaces, and even guestfs VMs. You can move the data and code
> to different contexts, but that doesn't change the fundamental issue.

That's still a huge win! You can seccomp it, you can assign LSM 
restrictions, you can significantly reduce the risk associated with 
mounting an untrusted filesystem. We have many more controls in a user 
context than we do in a kernel context.
 
> Disabling auto-mounting and for manual GUI mounts, requesting users
> confirm they trust the filesystem they are mounting would avoid that as
> much as is reasonably possible without entirely deleting the code and
> without breaking the use-cases of people who need the filesystem code. 

When is a user going to plug in a USB stick and *not* click that button? 
I'm not analysing a filesystem by hand to check whether it's trustworthy 
before I want it mounted. There's no reason to automount when the screen 
is locked and presenting a dialog in the case where one was plugged in 
and then the screen unlocked is reasonable, but that just makes no sense 
as generic behaviour.

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

Thread

Bug#1041552: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-20 20:10 +0200
  Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-21 10:30 +0200
    Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-21 11:00 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> - 2023-07-21 11:10 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2023-07-21 12:10 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:00 +0200
        Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:10 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-21 19:40 +0200
        Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2023-07-23 02:40 +0200
    Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> - 2023-07-21 11:20 +0200
    Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:00 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-21 12:20 +0200
        Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:30 +0200
          Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:10 +0200
          Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-22 09:50 +0200
            Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-22 10:00 +0200
              Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2023-07-22 10:30 +0200
                Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-22 10:40 +0200
              Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2023-07-22 14:50 +0200
                Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-25 06:40 +0200
              Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-25 06:30 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:20 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <bastien.roucaries@cyu.fr> - 2023-07-21 12:30 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com> - 2023-07-21 23:20 +0200

csiph-web