Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:04:27 +0200
From:      "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de>
To:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Cc:        Alex Popa <razor@ldc.ro>, security@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Compiling untrusted source -- what are the risks?
Message-ID:  <20010614210427.E49807@mail.webmonster.de>
In-Reply-To: <20010613130313.B64020@xor.obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 01:03:13PM -0700
References:  <20010613092402.A8413@ldc.ro> <20010613130313.B64020@xor.obsecurity.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--924gEkU1VlJlwnwX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Kris Kennaway(kris@obsecurity.org)@2001.06.13 13:03:13 +0000:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 09:24:02AM +0300, Alex Popa wrote:
>=20
> > The step I am worried about is the compiling, since I do need to have
> > the include files and libraries available.  The output should be a
> > statically linked file, which would run in a jail (separate one per
> > source file) which contains nothing more than the compiled binary, and
> > the input file.  The evaluation program will run in a separate jail,
> > given only the output file from the program, and maybe an "expected
> > results" file.  I plan on using ipfw to block all traffic on that
> > machine (will be a dedicated machine) not coming from a few trusted
> > uids (like root and the evaluation process).  I also plan setting up
> > resource limits, and not running more evaluation jobs at the same time
> > (ruins timing).
>=20
> You could do this step in a jail if you wanted to.  If you're using
> user-supplied makefiles, then they can run arbitrary commands.  If
> you're using a fixed set of compiler invocations and the standard
> toolchain then it should probably be okay (I don't know of any ways to
> cause the compiler toolchain to execute arbitrary commands during
> compilation).
>=20

although, being a paranoid bastard myself, i would reconstruct the whole
jail after creating a backup of the work environment only when the
evaluation process for one package is finished. this gives you a clean
slate point of start for everything again.

/k

--=20
> Only wimps use tape backups; real men put their software on ftp-servers
> and let the rest of the world mirror it. --Linus Torvalds
KR433/KR11-RIPE -- WebMonster Community Founder -- nGENn GmbH Senior Techie
http://www.webmonster.de/ -- ftp://ftp.webmonster.de/ -- http://www.ngenn.n=
et/
karsten&rohrbach.de -- alpha&ngenn.net -- alpha&scene.org -- catch@spam.de
GnuPG 0x2964BF46 2001-03-15 42F9 9FFF 50D4 2F38 DBEE  DF22 3340 4F4E 2964 B=
F46

--924gEkU1VlJlwnwX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7KQq7M0BPTilkv0YRAg6AAJ9bQm0Z+cpG7ot+U4U8AS4qBDbKpwCgimiJ
2rGsx2jvvXWiPkJdndAey1A=
=e+DU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--924gEkU1VlJlwnwX--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010614210427.E49807>