Gentoo Archives: gentoo-hardened

From: atoth@××××××××××.hu
To: gentoo-hardened@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] persistent paxctl -m?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:08:52
Message-Id: c252fe43260946d69f179a226c1bfa1e.squirrel@atoth.sote.hu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-hardened] persistent paxctl -m? by Grant
1 Don't agree.
2
3 If you employ GRsecurity's RBAC, you can use PAX flags, like
4 "PAX_MPROTECT" on a given subject (binary). Take a look at on the example
5 policy file.
6
7 Regards:
8 Dw.
9 --
10 dr Tóth Attila, Radiológus, 06-20-825-8057, 06-30-5962-962
11 Attila Toth MD, Radiologist, +36-20-825-8057, +36-30-5962-962
12
13 On Pén, Április 10, 2009 18:29, Grant wrote:
14 >>>> and create executable shell script in that dir:
15 >>>> mozilla-firefox-bin.postinst
16 >>>> ---cut---
17 >>>> #!/bin/bash
18 >>>> ewarn "Running chpax -m /opt/firefox/firefox-bin to avoid crash on
19 >>>> flash!"
20 >>>> chpax -m /opt/firefox/firefox-bin
21 >>>> ---cut---
22 >>>>
23 >>>
24 >>> Of course, if you compile firefox instead of using firefox-bin, then
25 >>> file
26 >>> should be named mozilla-firefox.postinst and you should use there
27 >>> paxctl
28 >>> instead of chpax.
29 >>>
30 >> A simple cron job or slightly-less-simple RBAC policy can do the trick.
31 >> There's no need to mess with portage, imho.
32 >
33 > Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I think this type of persistence
34 > should be built into portage. Maybe /etc/portage/package.nomprotect.
35 > Do you agree? Should I file a bug?
36 >
37 > - Grant
38 >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-hardened] persistent paxctl -m? Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com>