| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:51 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think I understand, in principle, why a sandbox could be useful, but |
| 8 |
> would it not be more productive to follow up with projects which do |
| 9 |
> unexpected things to ask that they not do those things? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
So step one is figuring out what those things are. So the LD_PRELOAD |
| 13 |
sandbox isn't designed to be a "security boundary" (its trivially |
| 14 |
defeat-able[1]). Instead its designed to be a fairly straightforward |
| 15 |
detector of 'anomalous' behavior. It works by intercepting file-operations |
| 16 |
and comparing them against a whitelist. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You can't tell people do stop doing unexpected things if you don't know |
| 19 |
their software is doing unexpected things. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
[1] So defeatable in fact that ebuilds have an API to modify the boundaries |
| 22 |
of the sandbox and even if the enforcement was stronger (e.g. via |
| 23 |
seccomp-bpf) there is still the idea that ebuilds can rather arbitrarily |
| 24 |
alter the sandbox boundaries...so nothing really prevents application code |
| 25 |
from also altering the boundaries in the current design; I suspect fixing |
| 26 |
this would be fairly tricky without some major changes. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-A |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> In the sense that Portage can in its entirely be isolated in various |
| 32 |
> ways (user groups, containers, virtual machines, etc) I am not sure |
| 33 |
> adding another layer is the most expedient option, especially if it is |
| 34 |
> hard to maintain. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> I once saw Java developers talking about introducing changes to an |
| 37 |
> enterprise program by not modifying the source, but keeping the source |
| 38 |
> as is, and then maintaining a set of reflection-based patches that |
| 39 |
> would modify the program after it was loaded but before it was run. |
| 40 |
> This did not make sense to me, and it seems a lot like what is being |
| 41 |
> done with the sandbox. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> In some cases that can make sense, I suppose. I am not a very smart |
| 44 |
> man, so I would not know the necessary burden of proof. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Respectfully, |
| 47 |
> R0b0t1 |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> |
Archives