5 ms·
Hiding filesystems is security via obscurity more than anything else, and probably won't hold up if someone has root. Things like SELinux by contrast allow you
by Zurrrrr 4y ago
Hiding filesystems is security via obscurity more than anything else, and probably won't hold up if someone has root.
Things like SELinux by contrast allow you to remove all access and power from the root account except for what it specifically needs, while allowing you to grant root capabilities to other accounts as needed.
pledge and unveil are toys by comparison.
- ori_b 4y ago> Hiding filesystems is security via obscurity more than anything else, and probably won't hold up if someone has root. Can you show me a proof of concept here?
- Zurrrrr 4y agoIf someone has remote root you are telling me they can't unhide a filesystem? Otherwise what are you disputing and what would you accept as evidence?
- ori_b 4y ago> If someone has remote root you are telling me they can't unhide a filesystem? Yes. There is no mechanism at all to unmask the vnode. If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see a proof of concept.
- Zurrrrr 4y agoIt's absolutely possible. No idea about a proof of concept, but I don't even think it matters, honestly. It's cute that the OS might play some tricks to hide them from you, but at the end of the day, that's all it is doing, is hiding. Security by obscurity. You're just betting you hid them really really well and that no one will be able to find them. With zero preparation in the event someone does. If you have root, you have access to the files, period. Someone determined enough could search, read and write to the disk directly, bypassing the filesystem. unveil is defense in depth, but it shouldn't be treated as a final line of defense which too many obsd fans seem to want to do.
- ori_b 4y agoHow? you don't have access to the devices. They're not in your namespace. Again, proof of concept please.
- Zurrrrr 4y agolol, ok. You really think root can't access the devices? lol. So you just want to have blind faith in what is basically security via obscurity with extra steps. That's fine, but it's not an approach to be taken seriously or advocated.
- ori_b 4y ago[flagged]
- Zurrrrr 4y agoI'm not spouting crap at all, you just really have your head buried in the sand. YOu've drunk more of the OBSD koolaid then even mac zealots drink of the mac kooolaid. I won't be replying again as I don't see how this is wroth my time when you can't even support anything you've said.
- ori_b 4y ago[flagged]
- witheld 4y agoYou don’t understand namespaces, there are no mechanisms, or root specific mechanisms, you could use to elevate a namespace. You don’t get any kind of god powers like kernel memory access, if you don’t have access to the system call you can’t debug. Like I don’t understand how to explain to you that SELinux locks down system calls in an identical way conceptually.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
- jmclnx 4y ago>Hiding filesystems is security via obscurity more than anything else, and probably won't hold up if someone has root. That statement indicates you do not fully understand pledge(2) and unveil(2). For example, if you are running Firefox using the default settings as root on OpenBSD. Firefox will not be able to see anything outside of the directories allowed by unveil(2). So an errant JS will not be able to peruse "veiled" Directories. For instance, Firefox cannot see any data in ~/.ssh no matter what ID you are using.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago> That statement indicates you do not fully understand pledge(2) and unveil(2). Not so, not so at all. You have to take my statement in context. The point was those technologies, while nifty, are entirely irrelevant if an attacker gains remote root.
- bentley 4y agoOpenBSD’s heavy use of pledge, unveil, privilege separation, unprivileged processes, chroot, and strong memory protections do an excellent job of keeping attackers from gaining root.
- Zurrrrr 4y agoA car can have all the tech in the world to avoid an accident, but I still expect it to have seatbelts.