3 ms·
Many comments in this thread are bashing the article for saying that chroot is useless or shouldn't be used. However the article itself takes a more nuanced app
by asadjb 7y ago
Many comments in this thread are bashing the article for saying that chroot is useless or shouldn't be used. However the article itself takes a more nuanced approach.
From the conclusion:
>It is not hard to consider the chroot() system call a security feature. In theory, it sounds great, but if you really take the time to understand what is going on, it is not really a security feature, it is closer to what we would call a hardening feature. It might slow down an attacker, but in most situations it is not going to stop them. We are dealing with a situation where calling this a security feature is likely more damaging than not because it creates a false sense of security. It is human nature to let our guard down if we believe we are safe. Using chroot is no safer than not using a chroot. You would be far better off investing your resources into a custom SELinux policy and ensuring your system is properly hardened. Good security has no shortcuts.
I think the point is that you shouldn't consider chroot the only or best option for securing your system. It's just one tool in the toolbox and needs to be understood properly and not trusted blindly as the solution for all security vulnerabilities.
- andreareina 7y agoI have a hard time reconciling calling chroot a hardening feature, but then turn around and say that it's no safer than not using it.
- addicted 7y agoI don’t think that’s unreasonable on its own, whether it is here or not. For example, in a non computer scenario, wearing bicycle helmets is definitely better for you if you get into an accident as the odds of injury reduces. However, the false sense of security may also make the wearer more reckless while riding their bike and potentially lead to more accidents. I think that’s the argument being made here. The false sense of security chroot may provide will lead to a person not hardening their systems as much if they weren’t using chroot at all, even if chroot itself does increases security.
- njharman 7y ago> It's just one tool in the toolbox and needs to be understood properly and not trusted blindly as the solution for all security vulnerabilities. That's true of every security feature. That is security 101. Saying that is prActically saying nothing (worthwhile). And it would be better said alone. Not in context of of tool otherwise people will assume ur bashing that tool as worthless.
- xorcist 7y ago> the article itself takes a more nuanced approach Let's see what the article says: > Using chroot is no safer than not using a chroot. Not very nuanced in my opinion. Few people argue we should replace chroot calls with SELinux these days. The article is interesting from a historical perspective but clearly needs a "(2013)" context.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- effie 7y agoThe article is inconsistent about chroot, but regarding SELinux, it has a point. SELinux looks like an old and solid mechanism to isolate processes from each other. Nowadays we have lxc to do that as well, but it does not make SELinux useless.
- vinay_ys 7y agoWhat's the argument that 2019 people would make? Replace chroot with ______?