oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting
From: Solar Designer <solar () openwall com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:18:18 +0300
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:46:47AM -0500, Nelson Elhage wrote:
I don't have any definite opinions here about where to draw which lines, but I want to point out that in addition to physical attack vectors, virtualization tools are also potentially affected by these kinds of bugs. If you try to mount an untrusted VM's virtual disk image from somewhere, you're also vulnerable to that VM triggering bugs in the filesystem or other layers.
Excellent point. Arguably, that would indicate improper design of the virtualization tool or an inappropriate action by a sysadmin, though. Here's an example: http://www.linode.com/backups/ "The backup system must be able to mount your disk images on the host." I wonder if they realize the risk they're taking... Alexander
Current thread:
- Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Dan Rosenberg (Feb 22)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Eugene Teo (Feb 22)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Eugene Teo (Feb 22)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Steve Grubb (Feb 23)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Timo Warns (Feb 23)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Steven M. Christey (Feb 23)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Nelson Elhage (Feb 22)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Solar Designer (Feb 22)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Michael Tokarev (Feb 22)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Sebastian Krahmer (Feb 22)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Vincent Danen (Feb 23)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Hanno Böck (Feb 23)
- Re: Physical access vulnerabilities and auto-mounting Eugene Teo (Feb 22)