Re: Modprobe local root exploit

From: Florian Weimer (Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE)
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 04:19:31 EST

Next message: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] Re: reliability of linux-vm subsystem"
Previous message: Jean Wolter: "Re: [PATCH] show_task() and thread_saved_pc() fix for x86"
Next in thread: Horst von Brand: "Re: Modprobe local root exploit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> All these patches against request_module are attacking the problem at
> the wrong point.

Agreed.

> The kernel can request any module name it likes, using any string it
> likes, as long as the kernel generates the name. The real problem
> is when the kernel blindly accepts some user input and passes it
> straight to modprobe, then the kernel is acting like a setuid
> wrapper for a program that was never designed to run setuid.

I don't think it's a good idea to distribute such stuff over the whole
kernel. Better control it at a single place, either when passing the
parameter down to modprobe, or in modprobe itself. Everything else is
too error-prone.

-- 
Florian Weimer 	                  Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE
University of Stuttgart           http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/
RUS-CERT                          +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] Re: reliability of linux-vm subsystem"
Previous message: Jean Wolter: "Re: [PATCH] show_task() and thread_saved_pc() fix for x86"
Next in thread: Horst von Brand: "Re: Modprobe local root exploit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:00:25 EST