Re: forkbombing Linux distributions
From: Natanael Copa (mlists_at_tanael.org)
Date: 03/23/05
- Previous message: linux-os: "Re: repeat a function after fixed time period"
- In reply to: Kyle Moffett: "Re: forkbombing Linux distributions"
- Next in thread: aq: "Re: forkbombing Linux distributions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Kyle Moffett <kmoffett@tjhsst.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:26:53 +0100
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 14:38 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2005, at 09:43, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> brings down almost all linux distro's while other *nixes survives.
> >
> > Let's see if this can be confirmed.
>
> Here at my school we have the workstations running Debian testing. We
> have edited /etc/security/limits.conf to have a much more restrictive
> startup environment for user processes, limiting to 100 processes per
> user and clamping maximum CPU time to 4 hours per process.
Thats great. I was was thinking of the default settings. (its even
possible to lock down a windows machine to be "secure")
Also the daemons started from bootscripts that is not aware of PAM is
not affected by those settings. So an exploited security flaw in a
service would allow an attacker to bring the system down even if the
service is running as non-root.
Try running this from a boot script and you'll see that even if this
process is setuid, it will be able to fork more than 100 processes per
user:
/* this program should be started as root but it changes uid */
#define TTL 300
#define MAX 65536
#define UID 65534
int pids[MAX];
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int count = 0; pid_t pid;
if (setuid(UID) < 0) {
perror("setuid");
exit(1);
}
while ((pid = fork()) >= 0 && count < MAX) {
if (pid == 0) sleep(TTL);
pids[count++] = pid;
}
printf("Forked %i new processes\n", count);
while (count--) kill(pids[count], SIGTERM);
return 0;
}
> In any case, I think
> that while there could perhaps be a better interface for user-limits
> in the kernel, the existing one works fine for most purposes, when
> combined with appropriate administrative tools.
My point is, the default max allowed processes per user is too high. It
better to open up a restrictive default than locking down an generous
default.
-- Natanael Copa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: linux-os: "Re: repeat a function after fixed time period"
- In reply to: Kyle Moffett: "Re: forkbombing Linux distributions"
- Next in thread: aq: "Re: forkbombing Linux distributions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
