users and developpers discussion about Grsecurity

headers Roman Vesely | 7 Jul 2006 20:38

Hello,

Last stable grsec is more than 6 month's old.
Any plan to make next stable release?

Thanks,

Roman

Roman,

  Checkout 
http://grsecurity.net/~spender/grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.3-200607060904.patch
Brad puts new developments in there first for testing and 
are generally quite stable.

-Jason

Roman Vesely wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Last stable grsec is more than 6 month's old.
> Any plan to make next stable release?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Roman
> _______________________________________________
> grsecurity mailing list
> grsecurity@...
> http://grsecurity.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grsecurity
> 

_______________________________________________
grsecurity mailing list
grsecurity@...
http://grsecurity.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grsecurity

On Friday 07 July 2006 20:25, Les wrote:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUB [snip]

Thank you, however, can we please get that in plain text? No, I don't want to 
start a txt vs html mail war... Please don't reply that way.

--

-- 
"When you walk across the fields with your mind pure and holy, then from
all the stones, and all growing things, and all animals, the sparks of
their soul come out and cling to you. And then they are purified, and
become a holy fire in you." -- Ancient Hasidic Saying

Resent via plain text.  Sorry for the trouble.

Greetings all,

  This advisory just made it's way to me.  I have yet to locate a proof 
of concept test to verify this vulnerability.  I felt the best course of 
action is ask the experts here if the current stable 2.6 release 
(grsecurity-2.1.8-2.6.14.6-200601211647) is sufficient to protect 
against this. 

  Regards,
    Les

fire-eyes wrote:
> On Friday 07 July 2006 20:25, Les wrote:
>   
>> <!DOCTYPE html PUB [snip]
>>     
>
> Thank you, however, can we please get that in plain text? No, I don't want to 
> start a txt vs html mail war... Please don't reply that way.
>
>   

On 7 Jul 2006 at 20:41, fire-eyes wrote:

> On Friday 07 July 2006 20:25, Les wrote:
> > <!DOCTYPE html PUB [snip]
> 
> Thank you, however, can we please get that in plain text? No, I don't want to 
> start a txt vs html mail war... Please don't reply that way.
> 
> -- 
> "When you walk across the fields with your mind pure and holy, then from
> all the stones, and all growing things, and all animals, the sparks of
> their soul come out and cling to you. And then they are purified, and
> become a holy fire in you." -- Ancient Hasidic Saying

not to rain on your parade, but i think i'm not the only one who sees
a certain discrepancy between 2 lines of content and a 4 line sig...

as for the original question, no, the 2.6.14 patch doesn't fix this bug
and you need to apply the mainline patch yourself.

Arg, and of course when I resend it in plain text I fail to include the 
notice itself.  Here it is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Secunia Security Advisories [mailto:sec-adv@...]

TITLE:
Linux Kernel "prctl" Privilege Escalation Vulnerability

SECUNIA ADVISORY ID:
SA20953

VERIFY ADVISORY:
http://secunia.com/advisories/20953/

CRITICAL:
Less critical

IMPACT:
Security Bypass, Privilege escalation

WHERE:
Local system

OPERATING SYSTEM:
Linux Kernel 2.6.x
http://secunia.com/product/2719/

DESCRIPTION:
A vulnerability has been reported in the Linux Kernel, which can be
exploited by malicious, local users to bypass certain security restrictions
or potentially gain escalated privileges.

The vulnerability is caused due to improper handling of core dumps.
This can be exploited to dump core files into usually restricted directories
or potentially gain root privileges.

SOLUTION:
Update to version 2.6.17.4.
http://www.kernel.org/

PROVIDED AND/OR DISCOVERED BY:
The vendor credits Red Hat.

ORIGINAL ADVISORY:
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.17.4

  Regards,
    Les F.

Les wrote:
> Resent via plain text.  Sorry for the trouble.
>
> Greetings all,
>
>  This advisory just made it's way to me.  I have yet to locate a proof 
> of concept test to verify this vulnerability.  I felt the best course 
> of action is ask the experts here if the current stable 2.6 release 
> (grsecurity-2.1.8-2.6.14.6-200601211647) is sufficient to protect 
> against this.
>  Regards,
>    Les
>
>
>
> fire-eyes wrote:
>> On Friday 07 July 2006 20:25, Les wrote:
>>  
>>> <!DOCTYPE html PUB [snip]
>>>     
>>
>> Thank you, however, can we please get that in plain text? No, I don't 
>> want to start a txt vs html mail war... Please don't reply that way.
>>
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> grsecurity mailing list
> grsecurity@...
> http://grsecurity.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grsecurity

I was just informed that I should update my current kernel
build, which until recently was managed for me, from
2.6.11.12-grsec to a new version.  Can I use the current:
grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.4-200607120947.patch
on the 2.6.17.6 kernel, or do I need to use a 2.6.17.4 build?

Thanks,
-BOP

"The more I know the more I know I don't know." -Socrates

hi,

in 2.6.17.{5,6} kernels was changed only one file fs/proc/base.c - 

 Makefile       |    2 +-
 fs/proc/base.c |    3 ++-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

and grsecurity patches doesn't affect this file, so you could use
2.6.17.4 patches against 2.6.17.6 kernel

regards,

Jakub 

On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 09:37 -0500, Boysenberry Payne wrote:
> I was just informed that I should update my current kernel
> build, which until recently was managed for me, from
> 2.6.11.12-grsec to a new version.  Can I use the current:
> grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.4-200607120947.patch
> on the 2.6.17.6 kernel, or do I need to use a 2.6.17.4 build?
> 
> Thanks,
> -BOP
> 
> "The more I know the more I know I don't know." -Socrates
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grsecurity mailing list
> grsecurity@...
> http://grsecurity.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grsecurity

So if I have grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.4-200607120947.patch in the same 
directory
as my unpacked linux-2.6.17.6 directory the following ought to patch 
the source?

patch -p0 < ./grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.4-200607120947.patch

Do I do this before do the following?

make oldconfig
make
make modules_install
install

Does this seem right?

Thanks,
Boysenberry

boysenberrys.com | habitatlife.com | selfgnosis.com

On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Jakub Cerveny wrote:

> hi,
>
> in 2.6.17.{5,6} kernels was changed only one file fs/proc/base.c -
>
>  Makefile       |    2 +-
>  fs/proc/base.c |    3 ++-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> and grsecurity patches doesn't affect this file, so you could use
> 2.6.17.4 patches against 2.6.17.6 kernel
>
> regards,
>
> Jakub
>
> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 09:37 -0500, Boysenberry Payne wrote:
>> I was just informed that I should update my current kernel
>> build, which until recently was managed for me, from
>> 2.6.11.12-grsec to a new version.  Can I use the current:
>> grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.4-200607120947.patch
>> on the 2.6.17.6 kernel, or do I need to use a 2.6.17.4 build?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -BOP
>>
>> "The more I know the more I know I don't know." -Socrates
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grsecurity mailing list
>> grsecurity@...
>> http://grsecurity.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grsecurity
>
>
>

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

2	May 2013
1	January 2013
2	December 2012
1	August 2012
1	July 2012
3	May 2012
1	March 2012
1	December 2011
5	November 2011
3	June 2011
2	May 2011
6	April 2011
1	February 2011
1	January 2011
7	December 2010
5	November 2010
4	October 2010
1	September 2010
4	July 2010
5	June 2010
16	May 2010
8	April 2010
1	March 2010
15	January 2010
7	November 2009
8	October 2009
15	September 2009
15	August 2009
2	July 2009
1	December 2008
2	November 2008
2	October 2008
9	September 2008
7	July 2008
3	June 2008
10	May 2008
9	April 2008
8	March 2008
27	February 2008
4	January 2008
5	October 2007
5	August 2007
5	July 2007
4	May 2007
20	April 2007
1	March 2007
1	February 2007
21	January 2007
8	December 2006
3	November 2006
10	October 2006
28	September 2006
18	August 2006
20	July 2006
6	May 2006
8	April 2006
4	March 2006
15	February 2006
50	January 2006
14	December 2005
28	November 2005
31	October 2005
33	September 2005
43	August 2005
24	July 2005
53	June 2005
50	May 2005
19	April 2005
91	March 2005
47	February 2005
52	January 2005
55	December 2004
43	November 2004
39	October 2004
62	September 2004
24	August 2004
8	July 2004

Any plan to release STABLE grsec for 2.6.[16|17] ?

Re: Any plan to release STABLE grsec for 2.6.[16|17] ?

[SA20953] Linux Kernel "prctl" Privilege Escalation Vulnerability

Re: [SA20953] Linux Kernel "prctl" Privilege Escalation Vulnerability

Re: [SA20953] Linux Kernel "prctl" Privilege Escalation Vulnerability

Re: [SA20953] Linux Kernel "prctl" Privilege Escalation Vulnerability

Re: [SA20953] Linux Kernel "prctl" Privilege Escalation Vulnerability

New to grsecurity and updating my kernel

Re: New to grsecurity and updating my kernel

Re: New to grsecurity and updating my kernel