|  |  | 
  
    |  |  | 
 
  |   |  | 
  
    |  |  | 
  
    |  |  | 
  
    |   xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Re: malicious paravirtualized guests: security and	isola 
| 
 On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Luke S Crawford <lsc@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote: 
First, I'm not really sure how you would disallow custom kernels, without"Vasiliy Baranov" <vasiliy.baranov@xxxxxxxxx > writes: 
> Sure. We are not talking about sharing the kernel between dom0 and domU. 
> domUs are going to have completely different kernels anyways. The question 
> is, if I have to allow custom modules in domUs (because my users cannot live 
> without them), does it make sense to disallow custom kernels, i.e. whether 
> disallowing custom kernels is going to buy me much?
giving users a box with a castrated root.
 By disallowing custom kernels I mean that dom0 can supply trusted (for
some value of "trusted") kernels rather than invoke pygrub.
 
 If you have root on aregular linux box, there are several mechanisms for modifying the running
 kernel without rebooting.
 Can you please name some of these mechanisms?
 
 
A data point:  I've been allowing custom kernels from just about anyoneon the net willing to give me $5 since 2005, and I haven't had anyone break
 out from the DomU to the Dom0.
 
 I am entirely paravirtualized, though, and from what I understand, HVM has
 a much larger (and theoretically  more buggy) interface between Dom0 and DomU.
 
 I have had problems where MAC address conflicts took things down,  (lock
 those MACs down and firewall them!)
 
 Oh, the weakest part of my system, in my opinion?  PyGrub.  (that, or my
 homemade scripts that give DomU owners access to 'xm console domain')
 Now, I don't know of any open security holes in PyGrub, but I know there
 were some in the past.
 
 Essentially, PyGrub is a python script that reads /boot/grub/menu.lst from
 the guest file system and then copies the kernel from the DomU to the Dom0.
 You can imagine how risky that is.
 Hmm, I can see security risks in the context of not completely trusted
dom0s. In the context of untrusted domUs, guest FS processing and file
copying does not sound like something too risky. Am I missing something?
 
 PVGRUB, from Xen 3.3, is theoretically much more secure, as it runsentirely within the DomU.
 
Agreed.
 
 Very helpful data point.
 
 Thank you very much,
 Vsailiy
 
 _______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users | 
 
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |  | 
Re: [Xen-users] Re: malicious paravirtualized guests: security and	isolation,
Vasiliy Baranov <=
 |  |  | 
  
    |  |  |