-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/20/2014 12:51 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> On 5/20/14, 11:03 AM, The Wanderer wrote:

>> If it is properly sandboxed, it should not be able to find out
>> anything about the sandbox (== the host executable) except what the
>> sandbox itself tells it
> 
> A sandboxed process still have full access to its own address space,
> no? It may be restricted in terms of what system calls it can make,
> but within itself it can do whatever it wants.
> 
> So if the CDM is running directly in the sandbox process address
> space (as opposed to running in some sort of VM) then it can
> interrogate things like the address space layout and compare it to
> the layout it expects.

Is it running that way?

I would have expected that each module involved - Firefox, the sandbox,
and the CDM - would be running as a separate process, with at least the
last one nested inside the previous. Although I'm not an expert on the
topic, I wouldn't have expected effective sandboxing of black-box code
to be practically possible any other way. (If there are resources on the
topic which I could use to educate myself on relevant principles, beyond
the glaringly obvious, I'd be glad to learn of them.)

>> unless there are channels for it to access the host system which
>> bypass the sandbox.
> 
> Inspecting your own address space doesn't require access to the
> system.

Will that be enough? That is, is that (for practical purposes)
impossible to effectively fake?

I wouldn't intuitively expect it to be, but then, I wouldn't have
expected this to be predictable enough to base validation on in the
first place (assuming I understand what you mean by "address space
layout" - the same as is used in the term ASLR, address-space layout
randomization). It's possible I underestimate the difficulty of
intentionally producing the same inner-process address-space layout in
two different ways.

- --
   The Wanderer

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=8gIK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Reply via email to