Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Regardless, I'm not convinced we can defend against this with the way we're currently thinking about operating system design.

Amen!

On that note: Why is it so so difficult to set up a (rootless) container/sandbox correctly? (I mean, look at what runc does – shit's incredibly complex!) And why is it next to impossible to nest containers without privileges and arcane knowledge of how some of the underlying kernel syscalls work? Even those 250 lines of code to landlock `make` that the author mentions sound awful to me.

I don't want to have to set up a sandbox for every single application by hand, let alone set up rules for all things that a malicious application could possibly exploit. Instead, I want security-by-default! Have every application run in a tight sandbox by default and let the application specify what permissions it needs, so that I only need to review those and can grant them as I like. Meanwhile, deny access to everything else!

Clearly, we are not (Linux is not) ready for this yet – we lack both a good UI for all of this permission handling and an agreed-upon contract that all application developers can follow.

In fact, for the vast majority of applications we don't even really know (have documented) what permissions / access to kernel syscalls they would need, so it'd be incredibly hard to switch to a principle of least privilege-based approach over night.

But man, one can always dream…



Sounds like IAM for the OS and we all know that just leads to wild card permissions everywhere because the developer doesn’t know what they need


The solution to that is linkers need to generate those permissions and create a manifest section in the elf file so the OS can handle it transparently.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: