[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikYhbyJs=42misf5JjtFsTAK5CM6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:57:23 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, security@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Security] CVE request: kernel: taskstats/procfs io infoleak
(was: taskstats authorized_keys presence infoleak PoC)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> I think it needs 2 CVE, one for /proc/PID/io and another for taskstats.
Hmm. Should we just round them down to 1kB boundaries or something?
People *do* want to know about IO accounting, but I agree that giving
things at a byte granularity ends up giving way too much information.
When you can see how many bytes something read off a tty, that's a
problem.
Returning accounting information at a 1k granularity should make it
impractical to use that to guess keys etc. It still gives *some*
information (and enough for rough statistics), but it doesn't give the
level of detail required for any simple attack.
Sometimes excessive precision isn't a good thing.
Andrew - the IO_ACCT stuff went through you (back in 2006), the
taskstats did too, methinks. Comments?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
