Re: [Cerowrt-devel] KASLR: Do we have to worry about other arches than x86?

["dpreed@deepplum.com" <dpreed@deepplum.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3322 bytes --]


I don't disagree about using containers being useful as one of many security mechanisms. They are useful against certain attack vectors, but depend on two things: 1) kernel correctness, and 2) putting all functionality in separate userspace processes to satisfy the "principle of least privilege".
 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:04pm
To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" <dpreed@deepplum.com>
Cc: "Joel Wirāmu Pauling" <joel@aenertia.net>, "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com>, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] KASLR: Do we have to worry about other arches than x86?



On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:02 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com <dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:
> Containers and kernel namespaces, and so forth are MEANINGLESS against the
> Meltdown and Sceptre problems. It's a hardware bug that lets any userspace
> process access anything the kernel can address.

Just to be clear, I was merely agreeing with joel that containers had
matured enough to be potentially usuable for some level of process
isolation and firewalling, not that it applied to coping with MeltRe.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Joel Wirāmu Pauling" <joel@aenertia.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:52pm
> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com>,
> cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] KASLR: Do we have to worry about other arches
> than x86?
>
> Well as I've argued before Lede ideally should be using to Kernel Namespaces
> (poor mans containers) for at a minimum the firewall and per-interface
> routing instances.
>
> The stuff I am running at home is mostly on cheap Atom board, so it's a
> matter of squeezing out unneeded cruft on the platform. Also I don't want to
> be admining centos/rhel servers at home.
>
> On 5 January 2018 at 10:47, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling <joel@aenertia.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5 January 2018 at 01:09, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we need to worry about it too much in a router context.
>> >> Virtual server folks, OTOH...
>> >>
>> >> - Jonathan Morton
>> >>
>> > Disagree - The Router is pretty much synonymous with NFV
>> >
>> > ; I run my lede instances at home on hypervisors - and this is
>> > definitely
>> > the norm in Datacentres now. We need to work through this quite
>> > carefully.
>>
>> Yes, the NFV case is serious and what I concluded we had most to worry
>> about - before starting to worry about the lower end router chips
>> themselves. But I wasn't aware that people were actually trying to run
>> lede in that, I'd kind of expected
>> a more server-like distro to be used there. Why lede in a NFV? Ease of
>> configuration? Reduced attack surface? (hah)
>>
>> The only x86 chip I use (aside from simulations) is the AMD one in the
>> apu2, which I don't know enough about as per speculation...
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dave Täht
>> CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>> http://www.teklibre.com
>> Tel: 1-669-226-2619



-- 

Dave Täht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4563 bytes --]