|
Message-ID: <20111108132326.214bcaf8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:23:26 +0000 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts > /proc/{interrupts,stat} are 0444, which may be used by local attacker to > learn statistical information about user's keystrokes, including the > passwords. So the distro can chmod it 0400 > /dev/pts/* and /dev/tty* leak the same timing information in inode's > atime and mtime. That one is trickier. I don't think it is a real leak because the last update timing info is in seconds granularity so is pretty useless for that. The atime/mtime behaviour is however required ABI and used by applications so can't simply go away. > Do we want to restrict permissions of interrupts/stat and remove atime > and mtime from ttys and relax these permissions when revoke() is introduced? revoke makes no difference I can see to either of these, they appear to be a completely unrelated discussion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.