Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:59:15 +0100 | From | Simon Arlott <> | Subject | Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface) |
| |
On 24/10/07 19:51, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Oct 24 2007 19:11, Simon Arlott wrote: >> >>* (I've got a list of access rules which are scanned in order until one of >>them matches, and an array of one bit for every port for per-port default >>allow/deny - although the latter could be removed. >>http://svn.lp0.eu/simon/portac/trunk/) > > Besides the 'feature' of inhibiting port binding, > is not this task of blocking connections something for a firewall?
The firewall blocks incoming connections where appropriate, yes, but it doesn't stop one user binding to a port that another user expected to be able to use. "Ownership" of ports (1-1023) shouldn't be something only root (via CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) has. Lots of services also don't have standard ports below 1024 and it's useful to be able to prevent users from binding to them too.
-- Simon Arlott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |