Hello Alan,
Here is the sample device ID from HP Deskjet 2000 J210 series printer.
MFG:HP;MDL:Deskjet 2000 J210
series;CMD:PCL,DW-PCL,DESKJET,DYN;CLS:PRINTER;DES:CH390A;CID:HPIJVIPAV1;LEDMDIS:USB#07#01#02,USB#FF#04#01;SN:CN03N1C06M05HY;S:038000C484001021002c1f0001ec2880032;J:
;Z:0102,05037460009600,0600,0c0,0e00000000,0f00000000,10000008000008,12000,143,150,16361a3746000316da15ae0003,17000000000000;:
get_device_id does not contain any information related to the user who
initiates the print job, indeed it contains only the device information (static
+ dynamic).
Static Information includes:
-Printer model Name
-Printer Language supported
-Manufacturer
-Serial Number
-Some more static information
Dynamic information:
- Printer Status (Idle, Paper Jam, Out of paper etc.)
- Ink Levels, types, regions etc.
- Installable options (Duplexer Unit, trays etc.)
- Some more dynamic data....
Thanks,
Sanjay
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Stern [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 11:55 PM
To: Hans de Goede
Cc: USB list; Kumar, Sanjay
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbfs: Allow printer class 'get_device_id' without needing
to claim the intf
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Are there any security implications to allowing any user on the
> > system to send a get_device_id request to a printer while it is in
> > the middle of a print job?
>
> To the best of my (limited) knowledge, no. As you indicated in the
> thread about this on the libusb list, some devices are known to have
> firmware bugs, which cause them to drop bulk-transfers when a ctrl
> transfer issued while a bulk transfer is in progress. So there could
> be a DOS issue, but such a device can easily be DOS-ed with
> control-requests which don't require a specific interface to be claimed, such
> as requests to get descriptors.
>
> Also note that even after this patch, only users with rw access to the
> relevant /dev/bus/usb/xxx/yyy node can issue a get_device_id request,
> and if they have such access they can also detach any other driver and
> claim the interface, so of they are malicious they can already issue
> such a request. The problem is that for non malicious users detaching
> the driver of another user is not really desirable / the right thing to do.
I had in mind something more like one user reading the contents of another
user's print job. Does get_device_id expose a significant amount of
information of that sort?
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
