[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection
On 13/12/13 20:20, Vegard Nossum wrote:

> On 12/13/2013 12:50 AM, Ryan Mallon wrote:
>> On 13/12/13 08:13, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Theodore Ts'o <> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:52:24PM +0100, wrote:
>>>>> The idea is simple -- since different kernel versions are vulnerable to
>>>>> different root exploits, hackers most likely try multiple exploits before
>>>>> they actually succeed.
>> The _exploit() notifications could also be used to spam the syslogs.
>> Although they are individually ratelimited, if there are enough
>> _exploit() markers in the kernel then an annoying person can cycle
>> through them all to generate large amounts of useless syslog.
> They are rate limited collectively, not individually, so this should not be an issue.

Yes, sorry, I misread the code.

I wonder if the exploit() function name should be changed though. Having:


In the code looks like some sort of injection/testing framework. Maybe:


would be clearer?


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-14 00:01    [W:0.064 / U:1.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site