KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Only you would know that. But then, I could be pointing you at the
wrong MPM. There is from memory another by another name developed
outside of ASF which intends to do the same think. The way it is
W dniu 2009-04-09, o godz. 18:19, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de
napisał(a):
On Thursday 09 April 2009, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Only you would know that. But then, I could be pointing you at the
wrong MPM. There is from memory another by another name developed
outside of ASF which intends
2009/4/9 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
However, SElinux does not allow to revert its privilege (security context)
unconditionally, even if it is dynamically changed.
If we want to revert it, the security policy has to allow B-A in addition
2009/4/9 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/9 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
However, SElinux does not allow to revert its privilege (security context)
unconditionally, even if it is dynamically changed.
If
The reason why I would like to set privilege prior to the invocation
of contents handler is to apply consistent access controls independent
from what kind of script languages are used.
I understand that, but you seem to be focused on the idea of using
threads within a process and thus
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/9 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
The reason why I would like to set privilege prior to the invocation
of contents handler is to apply consistent access controls independent
from what kind of script languages are used.
I understand that, but you seem to be
2009/4/9 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/9 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
The reason why I would like to set privilege prior to the invocation
of contents handler is to apply consistent access controls independent
from what kind of script languages are
On Thursday 09 April 2009, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Only you would know that. But then, I could be pointing you at the
wrong MPM. There is from memory another by another name developed
outside of ASF which intends to do the same think. The way it is
implemented is probably going to be different
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 09 April 2009, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Only you would know that. But then, I could be pointing you at the
wrong MPM. There is from memory another by another name developed
outside of ASF which intends to do the same think. The way it is
implemented is
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
of restriction
On 8 Apr 2009, at 03:27, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
[following up to Graham because two posts by him are all I have
in this thread]
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better
option?
Thease are limited
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
of restriction on the built-in script
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such
Nick Kew wrote:
On 8 Apr 2009, at 03:27, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
[following up to Graham because two posts by him are all I have
in this thread]
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:38:52AM +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
I've posted my idea to improve web-application security a few times
however, it could not interest folks unfortunatelly. :(
So, I would like to offer another approach for the purpose.
The attached patch is a proof of the concept of
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better
On 8 Apr 2009, at 08:32, Joe Orton wrote:
So I'm not sure that it's worthwhile. Having said that, it seems a
lot
more worthwhile than the mod_privileges approach in the trunk, which
seems to claim it is secure so long as you don't execute untrusted
code,
so I'm not sure what threat model
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:38:52AM +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
I've posted my idea to improve web-application security a few times
however, it could not interest folks unfortunatelly. :(
So, I would like to offer another approach for the purpose.
The attached patch is a proof
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:09:14AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
On 8 Apr 2009, at 08:32, Joe Orton wrote:
So I'm not sure that it's worthwhile. Having said that, it seems a
lot more worthwhile than the mod_privileges approach in the trunk,
which seems to claim it is secure so long as you don't
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:09:14AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
On 8 Apr 2009, at 08:32, Joe Orton wrote:
So I'm not sure that it's worthwhile. Having said that, it seems a
lot more worthwhile than the mod_privileges approach in the trunk,
which seems to claim it is secure so
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
However, SElinux does not allow to revert its privilege (security context)
unconditionally, even if it is dynamically changed.
If we want to revert it, the security policy has to allow B-A in addition
to A-B, but it is generally nonsense.
It is also the reason why we need
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
However, SElinux does not allow to revert its privilege (security context)
unconditionally, even if it is dynamically changed.
If we want to revert it, the security policy has to allow B-A in addition
to A-B, but it is generally nonsense.
It is
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
It concerns me that in your plans, even though you are changing the
security context of a single thread within an existing process, that
that thread may still has access to all the process memory and so
could read or modify
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
of restriction on the built-in script languages and references on
static documents (like *.html).
# For example, when we want to
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
of restriction on the built-in script languages and references on
static documents
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
of restriction on the built-in script languages and
28 matches
Mail list logo
