From owner-freebsd-security Wed May 17 6:47: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from jello.geekspace.com (jello.geekspace.com [208.154.207.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB4B037BA47 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 06:46:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chris.williams@third-rail.net) Received: (qmail 11014 invoked from network); 17 May 2000 13:47:15 -0000 Received: from jenica2.cust.third-rail.net (HELO third-rail.net) (@208.154.207.102) by jello.geekspace.com with SMTP; 17 May 2000 13:47:15 -0000 Message-ID: <3922A204.1A9CECCD@third-rail.net> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:43:32 -0400 From: Chris Williams X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Jail: Problems? Proper Usage? Status? Practicality? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > If a process running in the host system created a UNIX domain socket or > named pipe within the jail directory tree. Would a process running in the > jail be able to connect to and communicate with the host process through > this socket or pipe? If so I guess you could create work around for just > about anything by running it on the host system. Would this create a > potential way of defeating the jail? It does bring up the issue of buffer overflows and soforth in the process on the unjailed end of the pipe. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message