[cap-talk] Persistence: (pseudo)persistent process-private storage: good or bad?
gmatht at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 21:50:24 EST 2008
On Jan 21, 2008 5:29 PM, Rob Meijer <capibara at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> At the usage level, given that the data is not owned by a user but by
> a (user bound) instance of an executable, and the data is 'private' to
> this instance of the executable, there would be no disposable or auditable
> by the user. It would be auditable at the implementation level by root.
> I'm not completely clear about what you mean by 'safety' in this context.
By disposable I was thinking more along the lines of non-valuable, although
being able to audit any data created by non suid executables could be
useful. Moving to a new system will "dispose" of the data. The question is
whether anything valueable is lost.
By safety I meant that the data does not need to be audited because it
cannot encode back doors. E.g. ~/.bashrc, /etc/password etc. need to be
audited, but ~/familypics/onthebeach.jpg does not. Unless there a flaw in
the system there cannot be any malware hiding in
John C. McCabe-Dansted
University of Western Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cap-talk