[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

* Vegard Nossum <> wrote:

> On 12/12/2013 10:13 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I like it. I like how lightweight it is, and I like that it can be
> > trivially compiled out. My concerns would be:
> >
> > - how do we avoid bikeshedding about which exploits are "serious
> > enough" to trigger a report?
> Well, I've already suggested that only bugs that potentially lead to
> privilege escalation/intrusion (local and remote) would be
> candidates. This probably includes any kind of buffer overflow or
> "wild write" bug.

It's also up to the maintainer of the subsystem, so bikeshedding is
only as effective as the maintainer allows it to be.

> Clearly, a bug should also be present over a complete release cycle
> before it's worth annotating. [...]

Yes, only bugs present in a released kernel are candiates.

> [...] A bug introduced in -rc1 and fixed in -rc5 is NOT a candidate.

That's generally true, except perhaps in the special case if a bug got
backported and released in a stable kernel, and some good exploit got
released for that bug. In that case checking it is useful.

The point is that we want to check things that have a chance to result
in actual messages: i.e. deterministically triggerable bugs in
released kernel that are either trivially exploitable or are known to
be exploited in exploit kits.



 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-13 14:41    [W:0.199 / U:0.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site