Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

From	Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.devel
Subject	Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure
Date	2023-07-22 09:50 +0200
Message-ID	<GUfxf-1V9t-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<GUfxf-1V9t-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTG6t-1z5m-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTVoR-1ICx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTVoS-1ICx-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTVyx-1IFz-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Debian

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Fri, 2023-07-21 at 10:28 +0000, Bastien Roucariès wrote:

> Long term solution will be to push under fuse these filesystem.
> This a (short term)/(medium term band aid) solution.

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.

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. 

Of course sandboxing the code for those who need it is good too, so
probably we need both, along with ways to disable the mitigations.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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