From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul 25 22:46:29 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0743A14C36; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkoshy@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from jkoshy@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id WAA13646;
	Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkoshy@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: <jkoshy@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <199907260544.WAA13646@freefall.freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: sef@freebsd.org, jkoshy@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: deny ktrace without read permissions? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:13:33 MST."
             <199907260513.WAA08897@kithrup.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



jk> Yes, but /if/ KTRACE is present, today's code allows you to bypass
jk>the lack of read permissions on an executable.  That shouldn't be
jk>allowed.  The current behaviour could be regarded as a security
jk>hole actually :).

sef> No more so than core dumps do.

Yes, but an application can protect itself from an inadvertent core dump.
It can't (today) against being ktrace'd.

sef> I vote strongly against this change.

Noted, thanks.

I will summarize the result of the discussion in a followup to kern/3546.

Regards,
Koshy




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message