|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > linux-kernel archives|
On Oct 24 2007 13:18, Crispin Cowan wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Oct 24 2007 19:11, Simon Arlott wrote:
>>> * (I've got a list of access rules which are scanned in order until one of
>>> them matches, and an array of one bit for every port for per-port default
>>> allow/deny - although the latter could be removed.
>> Besides the 'feature' of inhibiting port binding,
>> is not this task of blocking connections something for a firewall?
>So now you are criticizing his module. Arguing about the merits of
>security semantics. This is exactly why Linus wanted LSM, so we don't
>have to have these kinds of discussions, at least not on LKML :)
This was a question. I was perfectly aware that iptables alone does not prohibit binding, and there are reasons to inhibit binding.
But sometimes, a coder does not know where to start - chances are,
that someone else wanting to do bind(2) inhibiting is doing it
with a syscall table change. Or coder did not notice that a firewall
is sufficient for the task to be achieved (which is not always the
case - hence the question).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html