From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 9 18:48:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2FA16A40F for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:48:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from piechota@argolis.org) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [216.148.227.151]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A01A43D45 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:48:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from piechota@argolis.org) Received: from acropolis.argolis.org ([71.224.141.16]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20061109184811m1100ne9u2e>; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:48:11 +0000 Received: from acropolis.argolis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by acropolis.argolis.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA9ImAnk032643; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:48:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from piechota@argolis.org) Received: from localhost (piechota@localhost) by acropolis.argolis.org (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) with ESMTP id kA9Im9lO032640; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:48:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from piechota@argolis.org) X-Authentication-Warning: acropolis.argolis.org: piechota owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:48:09 -0500 (EST) From: Matt Piechota To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <44slgs3cdy.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Message-ID: <20061109134144.P21928@acropolis.argolis.org> References: <8e96a0b90611080439n558022edj79febf458494ef6e@mail.gmail.com> <8e96a0b90611080441t2b486637ya10acd5a1dd77690@mail.gmail.com> <44irhq6ngd.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20061108142306.GA64711@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <8e96a0b90611082359jbc85b37kad6109a0aa87598@mail.gmail.com> <44slgs3cdy.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: mal content Subject: Re: Sandboxing X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:48:15 -0000 On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Seriously, though, while Erik Trulsson was correct in pointing out the > difference between an X client and an X server (only the latter has > direct access to memory), X clients do have fairly privileged access > to the server, and I don't have a lot of confidence in the safety of a > sandboxed application running in a normal X session. It's certainly Perhaps one would use Xvnc to eliminate issues with the client mucking around in the X server space? I assume that Xvnc/vncviewer do not just pass the X calls to the local server though. It seems like while jails, vnc, and sandboxes may work, the safest method is to run in a VM as you mentioned. -- Matt Piechota