Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:06:19 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Lots of people care a lot about plan9. The problem is that it's a lot like UNIX. UNIX presupposes lots of special-purpose applications doing rather specific and well-defined things, and that is a decreasingly accurate reflection of the way people write applications. All these security extensions get extremely messy the moment you have general-purpose applications that you want to be able to do some things some times, and other things other times, and where the nature of the protections you want depends on, and changes with, the whim of the user. The complex structure of modern UNIX applications doesn't help (lots of dependent libraries, files, interpreters, etc), because it almost instantly pushes the package dependency problem into the access control problem. I don't think it's hopeless, but I think that any answer that looks simple is probably wrong by definition. :-)
I think that the per-process namespaces are useful, and can be added to the existing Unix model with quite favourable consequences. On the other hand, I do not think that security is the most important application of the namespaces, or even have a direct relation to it.
Implementing namespaces for FreeBSD looks as an doable and quite interesting project for me :).
Sounds good to me :-).
As with all such project (variant symlinks, process-local name spaces, etc), do be very careful about security -- often as not, such projects risk tripping over problems with privilege-escalated processes, such as setuid binaries, etc, which place strong trust in the file system name space.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Matthew Dillon
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Julian Elischer
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- References:
- A new kind of security needed
- From: Matt Reimer
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Jason Stone
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Patrick Proniewski
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: A new kind of security needed
- From: Kostik Belousov
- A new kind of security needed
- Prev by Date: Re: A new kind of security needed
- Next by Date: Re: A new kind of security needed
- Previous by thread: Re: A new kind of security needed
- Next by thread: Re: A new kind of security needed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|