Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#2Brilliant.
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#3p = (char *)(path + strlen(path) - 4);
This is a very bad idea as path is user-supplied and has to be treated as malicious. An attacker can omit the string-terminator...
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#4p = (char *)(path + strlen(path) - 4); This is a very bad idea as path is user-supplied and has to be treated as malicious. An attacker can omit the string-terminator...
You're inserting a dodgy bit of a code into a live running kernel. You are an attacker! I mean, valid technicality, but really? If you've got the ability to insert any module you want, you have the ability (ok, not always, but usually) to rm -rf /
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#5p = (char *)(path + strlen(path) - 4); This is a very bad idea as path is user-supplied and has to be treated as malicious. An attacker can omit the string-terminator...
You're inserting a dodgy bit of a code into a live running kernel. You are an attacker! I mean, valid technicality, but really? If you've got the ability to insert any module you want, you have the ability (ok, not always, but usually) to rm -rf /
Bullshit.
Anyone who's using open() can kill the kernel after loading this module.
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're inserting a dodgy bit of a code into a live running kernel. You are an attacker! I mean, valid technicality, but really? If you've got the ability to insert any module you want, you have the ability (ok, not always, but usually) to rm -rf /
Bullshit. Anyone who's using open() can kill the kernel after loading this module.
Probably best that any user can kill the kernel in this situation, if you stop to think about it.
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#7This is great, for the fun of course, but also and mainly because it is a simple example of a working kernel module, which is not something one can see very often.
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#8I'll be saving this for April 1, 2012 :)
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#9Why not just write a FUSE module?
Re: Kernel module for advanced rickrolling replaces open() call
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're inserting a dodgy bit of a code into a live running kernel. You are an attacker! I mean, valid technicality, but really? If you've got the ability to insert any module you want, you have the ability (ok, not always, but usually) to rm -rf /
Bullshit. Anyone who's using open() can kill the kernel after loading this module.
[deleted]