3 ms·

Syswall: a firewall for syscalls

• jquast 8y ago
  sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systrace#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systrace#Features more ... http://www.citi.umich.edu/u/provos/systrace/ http://www.citi.umich.edu/u/provos/systrace/ it didn't work out then, but best wishes to the new generation
  • polaris64 8y ago
    You're right; I hadn't come across systrace before actually, but it's very similar to what syswall is trying to achieve. I'll be sure to take a look!
  • yazr 8y ago
    What do you mean by it didn't work? Not adopted or are there implementation issues? Also - for the OP. Don't be discouraged there's so many features to add, management, attribution, machine learning etc
    • zxombie 8y ago
      There were some security issues in systrace. /http://www.watson.org/~robert/2007woot/ http://www.watson.org/~robert/2007woot/
• equalunique 8y ago
  Sounds a little bit like OpenBSD's pledge - was that a source of inspiration?
  • polaris64 8y ago
    Yes, partially, although I wanted to create a more interactive system for end-users to reason about software. I wouldn't recommend it (certainly not yet at least) for system security, tools like seccomp and pledge will do a better job there.
    • lsofzz 8y ago
      Nice work. Just read this :-)
• lsofzz 8y ago
  How is this different from seccomp?
  • polaris64 8y ago
    seccomp is a robust way of restricting a process's syscalls so that it can only do what you allow it to. syswall is more of an interactive tool (similar to systrace as mentioned in another comment). The goal is not to replace seccomp (it's certainly not meant to provide complete security), but rather to allow users to reason about what a process is actually doing. For example, allowing users to see if a new version does something different from the previous, perhaps meaning that malicious code was added unexpectedly.