About root jails. I like this idea so I tried to do some root jail tests. Here is my problem and maybe you can point out where I went wrong. If you are running a server with sshd, httpd, cvsd, smtpd, and pop3d you will need five different root jails that are locked away from each other. Each server will need to talk to each other via sockets if they need to communicate and you may need another root jail if you are running a database. Each root jail needs its own bin, sbin and lib directories and in many cases like with apache you will also need /usr/bin and /usr/sbin programs. If your apache needs php or perl you will also need all of that stuff in the root jail. The mail server may need perl if you are going to be running any thing like spamassassin.

Now here is my problem. If you make all of these root jails to contain all the programs they need you are going to end up with a lot of duplicated programs scattered all over your system. A fully working apache with perl and php is going to use up about 300 MB of space times that by the six or so services you want to jail and that becomes a lot of extra work when it comes time to upgrade them.

I would like to know if there is any way to do this with one image of a root jail system to serve all the jails.
I tried but could not make it work.

On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 15:06, Curtis Sloan wrote:
On Sat May 8 2004 17:50, Roy Souther wrote:
> I just wrote up this html file called ServerDefender that talks about
> how to protect your server if someone gets into it. Let me know what you
> think.
>
> http://llug.linux.ab.ca/Projects/ServerDefender/ServerDefender.html
>
> Roy Souther
> www.SiliconTao.com
>
> Changing the way people do business.

An OK quick-and-dirty layer on top of normal chroot jailing (which should be 
done anyway).

Ideally, this should kind of hardened implementation should be done instead 
using mandatory ACLs and security policy frameworks such as SELinux provides.  
However, those can require quite a bit of overhead to modify or develop.

Some of the things that this misses out on protecting is the running, 
available services (including the kernel) by using protections against stack 
smashing and buffer overflows, etc.

But all-in-all, if you want a quick-and-dirty lock-down, this would do it.

My thoughts,
Curtis

_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca

Roy Souther
www.SiliconTao.com


Changing the way people do business.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca

Reply via email to