| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Workaround: remount /proc nosuid,noexecWorkaround: remount /proc nosuid,noexecPosted Jul 16, 2006 21:36 UTC (Sun) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051)In reply to: Workaround: remount /proc nosuid,noexec by Duncan Parent article: Lots more kernel releases
Perhaps not even a reboot is neeeded? I just did this:
mount -o remount,nosuid,noexec /proc
Then, "mount" shows:
proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid)
Any drawbacks?
(Log in to post comments)
Workaround: remount /proc nosuid,noexec Posted Jul 16, 2006 23:36 UTC (Sun) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] That was exactly what he said: "but doing a /proc remount nosuid,noexec might be a useful workaround for those who find it inconvenient to reboot ATM" :)
Workaround: remount /proc nosuid,noexec Posted Jul 16, 2006 23:43 UTC (Sun) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] Your right. And I HAD my coffee. Uh oh.
Workaround: remount /proc nosuid,noexec Posted Jul 17, 2006 16:14 UTC (Mon) by djrom (subscriber, #26074) [Link] As usual, when someone suggests "noexec" for solving a security problem, it's not really a solution. It can't harm to do it anyway, but it's pretty easy to bypass. Just replace "/proc/executable" by "/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /proc/executable" and the exploit will work without a glitch.
Nope Posted Jul 17, 2006 21:05 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The exploit evidently is blocked if /proc is mounted nosuid. noexec has no effect.
Nope Posted Jul 17, 2006 23:10 UTC (Mon) by djrom (subscriber, #26074) [Link] Oops, I didn't checked for this precise exploit. I still think it's good to have it reminded as a general information on the usefulness of noexec mount option, but I stand corrected about for the exploit we were talking about :)
|
|
||||||||||||