Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:25:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> To: matt@gsicomp.on.ca Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow Message-ID: <200409180625.i8I6Pejb000735@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <006201c49d42$0c751aa0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Sep, Matt Emmerton wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>
> To: "Matt Emmerton" <matt@gsicomp.on.ca>
> Cc: <viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>; "Avleen Vig"
> <lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com>; <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
> <gerarra@tin.it>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:22 AM
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow
>
>
>> In <001801c49d38$1c8cb790$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>, Matt Emmerton
> <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> typed:
>> > I disagree. It really comes down to how secure you want FreeBSD to be,
> and
>> > the attitude of "we don't need to protect against this case because
> anyone
>> > who does this is asking for trouble anyway" is one of the main reason
> why
>> > security holes exist in products today. (Someone else had brought this
> up
>> > much earlier on in the thread.)
>>
>> You haven't been paying close enough attention to the discussion. To
>> exploit this "security problem" you have to be root. If it's an
>> external attacker, you're already owned.
>
> I'm well aware of that fact. That's still not a reason to protect against
> the problem.
>
> If your leaky bucket has 10 holes in it, would you at least try and plug
> some of them?
If an attacker is allowed to install arbitrary syscalls, he might as
well install one that is easier to exploit.
struct write2kernel_args {
void *ubuf;
void *kbuf;
size_t nbyte;
};
void
write2kernel(td, uap)
struct thread *td;
struct write2kernel_args *uap;
{
copyin(uap->ubuf, uap->kbuf, nbyte);
}
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409180625.i8I6Pejb000735>