Linux - SecurityThis forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
This weeks Security Alerts
In this weeks Security Alerts, we look at a security vulnerability in LIDS; buffer overflows in CUPS, jgroff, Sun Solstice Enterprise Master Agent, and Ettercap; and problems in Sawmill, Faq-O-Matic, pforum, GNAT, Taylor UUCP, and IRIX O2 Video.
..the stuff they're talking about writing to /dev/kmem has been explained quite a while ago by someone called Silvio (author of a few proof of concept Linux viruses, IIRC).
I was trying to assess how vulnerable a box would be when using a GRSecurity patched 2.4 kernel with module loading enabled, and how to somewhat control the damage using Linux Capabilities.
On boot, after loading modules and doing the GRSecurity sysctl stuff, I figured using Lcap to unset the loading of modules (CAP_SYS_MODULE) would be enough. Not, cuz when CAP_SYS_RAWIO isn't disabled they'll be able to write to /dev/kmem.
Doing some further readups also stated writing /dev/kmem as A Clever Way for a cracker to load module code when faced with a kernel w/o module support (when CAP_SYS_RAWIO hasn't been taken away).
* I haven't got a clear view on what would be b0rken when CAP_SYS_RAWIO is taken away tho...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.