[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [ardour-dev] ardour

>On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:46, Paul Davis wrote:
>> as for security issues, thats pretty much irrelevant for a program
>> that to be used as intended, requires root priviledge or various
>> capabilities that make it possible to do anything with the
>> machine. such a program is a massive security hole, and will be until
>> the basic level of security granularity in the kernel changes. i'm not
>> particularly interested in issues like a buffer overflow fix in some
>> C++ library when the program itself is a such a huge security hole.
>Having a program running with unrestricted access to the machine is the best 
>reason for being particularly concerned about the possibility of buffer 
>overflows etc.

i don't think you get my point. no buffer overflow bug is needed to
get a program like ardour to take control of any part of the
machine. there is no point in looking for buffer overflow problems,
because there are much more obvious things to do (for example, write a
LADSPA plugin that makes system calls to wipe the entire disk).

>Also you can use SE Linux to lock down root processes.  For a few months I ran

a BSD-jail()-like system might help somewhat, but it would be complex
to manage and most users of Ardour would find it nightmarish to use
and almost, but not completely, unnecessary.
>a machine with an open root password on the net and no-one managed to abuse 
>it...  With SE Linux I can lock down the access of any process to any degree 
>I like.

you can't control which scheduling calls it can make, and you can't
limit mlockall() to a specific size, i think. 


Reply to: