| To: | John Richard Moser <nigelenki@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Sockets from kernel space? |
| From: | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:29:46 -0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <41C0FDBA.5060406@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Conectiva S.A. |
| References: | <41C0E720.8050201@xxxxxxxxxxx> <41C0DF8B.2020007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41C0FDBA.5060406@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041103) |
John Richard Moser wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks. I'll look at those. I'm aiming at potentially writing an LSM that allows a process to attach to the kernel, which will then be sent messages through an AF_UNIX (these are the app<->app sockets right?) socket with the details of any listen(2) or connect(2) calls made. I was going to do it in userspace, but realized it was easily avoidable that way. If this works, I can pretty much securely create a host firewall that regulates based on network operations, user, and program. This would allow the creation of discressionary firewalls, like Zone Alarm, Norton PF, McAffee PF, etc. The daemon sits in userspace, the kernel asks it for policy decisions, it asks connected/authenticated clients about unknown policy, and makes them re-authenticate to get an answer. The authentication is in userspace (PAM), hence the daemon. Look at the iproute2 code to know how to use netlink 8) - Arnaldo |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Sockets from kernel space?, John Richard Moser |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Badness in dst_release, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Sockets from kernel space?, John Richard Moser |
| Next by Thread: | Badness in dst_release, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |