[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aKQrHYrHZ_VT61Um@remnant.pseudorandom.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:43:25 +0100
From: Simon McVittie <smcv@...ian.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@...eeler.com>,
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@...c17.net>
Subject: Re: blocking weird file names (was: xterm terminal
crash due to malicious character sequences in file name)
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 21:24:07 -0500, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>Does this need to be an entirely new module or could it be an extension to
>SELinux?
If it isn't a core kernel enhancement like
/proc/sys/fs/protected_symlinks, then it would be better to have this as
a new LSM, or perhaps extend an existing "small" LSM like Yama.
Only one "big" LSM (with labelling) can be active at a time, so loading
AppArmor excludes SELinux and vice versa, meaning that each distro has
to choose whether they will have SELinux, AppArmor, Smack or none of
those by default. Lifting that restriction has been in progress for a
while, but it's difficult to achieve and the relevant APIs assume there
is only one "big" LSM. But any number of "small" LSMs like Yama and
Landlock can coexist with up to one "big" LSM.
Even if the SELinux team saw it as in-scope (which I suspect they might
not), adding this functionality to SELinux would not protect AppArmor
users and vice versa, whereas having it in a "small" LSM would benefit
everyone.
smcv
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
