On 13/12/2018 06:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
* James Morris:
quoted
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
quoted
* James Morris:
quoted
If you're depending on the script interpreter to flag that the user may
execute code, this seems to be equivalent in security terms to depending
on the user. e.g. what if the user uses ptrace and clears O_MAYEXEC?
This security mechanism makes sense in an hardened system where the user
is not allowed to import and execute new file (write xor execute
policy). This can be enforced with appropriate mount points a more
advanced access control policy.
quoted
quoted
The argument I've heard is this: Using ptrace (and adding the +x
attribute) are auditable events.
I guess you could also preload a modified libc which strips the flag.
My understanding is that this new libc would have to come somewhere, and
making it executable would be an auditable even as well.
Auditing is a possible use case as well, but the W^X idea is to deny use
of libraries which are not in an executable mount point, i.e. only
execute trusted code.