On Jul 21, 2015 4:18 AM, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2015 07:30 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
> >> (b) Make a copy of the file, put it in a directory which only the
> >> service user can read (or ship it with 750 permissions and the service
> >> group controlling it), and set fscaps. The downside is the large binary
> >> size (it has to be a copy, a link won't work). And the service user
> >> could still run the service with command line options that allow
> >> privilege escalation.
> >>
> >
> > If you set inheritable fscaps but not permitted, this should be reasonably
> > safe.
>
> Empirically, this causes the capability to end up in the P set, not the
> E set, which means that the application still needs to be capability to
> enable it. So it really doesn't help that much in the Go case, sadly.
> Although it is fairly close.
Try 2: set the capability in the inheritable set and set the effective bit. (The effective fscap is a single bit, not a mask. You still program it with "=ei" because the syntax is wrong.)
--Andy
>
> --
> Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
