3 ms·

> The same thing as any other framework. No. Not even close. You're missing the point. There is a fundamental difference which you are ignoring or blind to.

> The same thing as any other framework. No. Not even close. You're missing the point. There is a fundamental difference which you are ignoring or blind to. With something like pledge, you can't limit anywhere near as much as what you can limit with a MAC framework. This means with pledge, you can only limit to what the program needs, which may well be enough (and with something like Oracle it's almost guaranteed) for an attacker to escape whatever confines you think you have in place. That simply isn't true for a MAC framework where you can limit to a greater extent and with a lot more granularity. > Luckily, you can pledge and unveil from outside the process, as the code above does. That doesn't help even slightly and has no bearing on the point I made. > Yes, that's what you get with pledge and unveil. Jesus christ no you don't. Not even close. At this point it's abundantly clear you are not familiar with MAC frameworks at all, and you're just convinced that pledge and unveil are the same thing. That's willful ignorance and nothing more. > If you think otherwise -- I gave you a program that runs any arbitrary binary; please show a demo of a jailbreak. You haven't shown that pledge and unveil are as good at SELinux at locking down something like Oracle, you're just claiming it is with hand waiving. pledge and unveil simply don't offer what SELinux does, and you're just dismissing that and insisting they do. Ridiculous.

ori_b 4y ago
> With something like pledge, you can't limit anywhere near as much as what you can limit with a MAC framework. Go ahead, tell me a specific thing that I can't limit with pledge and unveil. Note that everything you mentioned when discussing Oracle could be done with them. I've provided code. You haven't even listed a threat model. You just yelled a bit about root escapes, and then when challenged to provide an example, yelled about Oracle. And then yelled a bit about how MAC provides more, without any specifics about which relevant 'more' it provides. (I certainly agree that it's more flexible, more complicated, and more difficult to configure -- but not that it's more secure). Again, there's example code sitting right there, which can be used for something like Oracle. Prove that there's an escape.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  > Go ahead, tell me a specific thing that I can't limit with pledge and unveil. Note that everything you mentioned when discussing Oracle could be done with them. Sigh. I've listed numerous examples, and like a dipshit you just change a few words in my reply and parrot it back at me, without seemingly comprehended a thing. At this point you are just displaying zealotry. Even Theo disagrees with you. > I've provided code. Fucking exactly. That shows that you are not following the discussion at all, just blindly defending your niche OS. We were talking about complex third party programs that are hard to lock down. A short code example using pledge is, now make sure you read these next few words and try to absorb them, entirely fucking irrelevant. We're not talking about software developers trying to prevent exploitation of trusted code, we're talking about trying to lock down untrusted code in the event of a compromise. > You just yelled a bit about root escapes, and then when challenged to provide an example, yelled about Oracle. And then yelled a bit about how MAC provides more, without any specifics about which relevant 'more' it provides. No, I gave specific examples, and you just hand waived them and asserted pledge and unveil offer the same capabilities and defenses without bothering to show how. > Again, there's example code sitting right there, which can be used for something like Oracle No it fucking can't, at all, it's entirely irrelevant and has no relationship to oracle at all. Are you on the spectrum or something? How are you failing to follow this discussion to this extent? It's honestly baffling.
  - ori_b 4y ago
    > We were talking about complex third party programs that are hard to lock down. A short code example using pledge is, now make sure you read these next few words and try to absorb them, entirely fucking irrelevant. That short code example LOCKS DOWN AN ARBITRARY THIRD PARTY PROGRAM that you pass it as a command line argument. I skipped arg parsing for simplicity, but it does exactly what you're asking for. > No, I gave specific examples Can you point to the code you posted that breaks out of the sandbox I gave? I seem to have missed it.
    - Zurrrrr 4y ago
      So, I'm going to go ahead and assume you are indeed on the spectrum at this point. Not that it matters. But once again you just parrot a point back at me lol. > That short code example LCOKS DOWN A COMPLEX THIRD PARTY PROGRAM. The fact that you haven't understood this shows that you're not understanding the discussion. It doesn't do a fucking thing to lock down Oracle you absolute twit. Oracle won't even start if you try to limit it as though it were Chrome. Why is it somehow not in the least bit surprising that you a) think that would work and b) think it's a viable solution. Sigh. This is honestly so fucking stupid. Pledge can ONLY restrict a program to the syscalls it needs. If the program needs syscalls which can be used to leverage an escape or escalation, pledge is fucking useless. SELinux doesn't have that weakness. That you don't understand this fundamental difference shows you're out of your depth, and that as suspected you're a waste of time to try and educate. I'm not going to reply to you again given how technically illiterate you are in this context. Given how insecure and religious towards OpenBSD you seem to be, I'm assuming you're going to need to have the last word, and likely will yet again just parrot back a paraphrased version of one of my replies to you...yet again demonstrating your lack of originality or comprehension. Have fun with that, and I hope having the last word gives you that little boost of self-confidence you seem to be craving to compensate for your clear lack of knowledge. Best of luck to you in life. You need it.

ori_b 4y ago

> With something like pledge, you can't limit anywhere near as much as what you can limit with a MAC framework. Go ahead, tell me a specific thing that I can't limit with pledge and unveil. Note that everything you mentioned when discussing Oracle could be done with them. I've provided code. You haven't even listed a threat model. You just yelled a bit about root escapes, and then when challenged to provide an example, yelled about Oracle. And then yelled a bit about how MAC provides more, without any specifics about which relevant 'more' it provides. (I certainly agree that it's more flexible, more complicated, and more difficult to configure -- but not that it's more secure). Again, there's example code sitting right there, which can be used for something like Oracle. Prove that there's an escape.

Zurrrrr 4y ago
> Go ahead, tell me a specific thing that I can't limit with pledge and unveil. Note that everything you mentioned when discussing Oracle could be done with them. Sigh. I've listed numerous examples, and like a dipshit you just change a few words in my reply and parrot it back at me, without seemingly comprehended a thing. At this point you are just displaying zealotry. Even Theo disagrees with you. > I've provided code. Fucking exactly. That shows that you are not following the discussion at all, just blindly defending your niche OS. We were talking about complex third party programs that are hard to lock down. A short code example using pledge is, now make sure you read these next few words and try to absorb them, entirely fucking irrelevant. We're not talking about software developers trying to prevent exploitation of trusted code, we're talking about trying to lock down untrusted code in the event of a compromise. > You just yelled a bit about root escapes, and then when challenged to provide an example, yelled about Oracle. And then yelled a bit about how MAC provides more, without any specifics about which relevant 'more' it provides. No, I gave specific examples, and you just hand waived them and asserted pledge and unveil offer the same capabilities and defenses without bothering to show how. > Again, there's example code sitting right there, which can be used for something like Oracle No it fucking can't, at all, it's entirely irrelevant and has no relationship to oracle at all. Are you on the spectrum or something? How are you failing to follow this discussion to this extent? It's honestly baffling.
- ori_b 4y ago
  > We were talking about complex third party programs that are hard to lock down. A short code example using pledge is, now make sure you read these next few words and try to absorb them, entirely fucking irrelevant. That short code example LOCKS DOWN AN ARBITRARY THIRD PARTY PROGRAM that you pass it as a command line argument. I skipped arg parsing for simplicity, but it does exactly what you're asking for. > No, I gave specific examples Can you point to the code you posted that breaks out of the sandbox I gave? I seem to have missed it.
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    So, I'm going to go ahead and assume you are indeed on the spectrum at this point. Not that it matters. But once again you just parrot a point back at me lol. > That short code example LCOKS DOWN A COMPLEX THIRD PARTY PROGRAM. The fact that you haven't understood this shows that you're not understanding the discussion. It doesn't do a fucking thing to lock down Oracle you absolute twit. Oracle won't even start if you try to limit it as though it were Chrome. Why is it somehow not in the least bit surprising that you a) think that would work and b) think it's a viable solution. Sigh. This is honestly so fucking stupid. Pledge can ONLY restrict a program to the syscalls it needs. If the program needs syscalls which can be used to leverage an escape or escalation, pledge is fucking useless. SELinux doesn't have that weakness. That you don't understand this fundamental difference shows you're out of your depth, and that as suspected you're a waste of time to try and educate. I'm not going to reply to you again given how technically illiterate you are in this context. Given how insecure and religious towards OpenBSD you seem to be, I'm assuming you're going to need to have the last word, and likely will yet again just parrot back a paraphrased version of one of my replies to you...yet again demonstrating your lack of originality or comprehension. Have fun with that, and I hope having the last word gives you that little boost of self-confidence you seem to be craving to compensate for your clear lack of knowledge. Best of luck to you in life. You need it.