Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:18:46 -0400
From: Matt Brown <>
To: Mimi Zohar <>, Kees Cook <>
Cc: James Morris <>,
 "Serge E. Hallyn" <>, LKML <>,
 linux-security-module <>,
 "" <>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Add Trusted Path Execution
 as a stackable LSM

On 6/9/17 9:16 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 05:55 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Mimi Zohar <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 23:50 -0400, Matt Brown wrote:
>>>>>> *  Issues:
>>>>>>    *  Can be bypassed by interpreted languages such as python. You can run
>>>>>>       malicious code by doing: python -c 'evil code'
>>>>> What's the recommendation for people interested in using TPE but
>>>>> having interpreters installed?
>>>> If you don't need a given interpreter installed, uninstall it. While
>>>> this is common sense system hardening it especially would make a
>>>> difference under the TPE threat model.
>>>> I don't have a knock down answer for this. Interpreters are a hard
>>>> problem for TPE.
>>> You might be interested in the minor LSM named "shebang", that I
>>> posted as a proof of concept back in January, which restricts the
>>> python interactive prompt/interpreter, but allows the scripts
>>> themselves to be executed.
>> Maybe these could be merged and the interpreter string could be made
>> into a configurable list?
> I updated shebang, but didn't bother to post it, as nobody seemed to
> be interested at the time.  The updated version already has support
> for the configurable list. Re-posting ...

That would be awesome. I think it's the perfect complement to TPE as it
protects a key hole in its current threat model.


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.