> If one did wish to use Singularity for nefarious purposes, however, the code is MIT licensed and freely available — using it in that way would only be a crime, not an instance of copyright infringement. Too bad the author picked the MIT license. Had they picked (A)GPL, it would have forced the criminals to distribute a copy of LICENSE.TXT alongside their improved copy of the source code on systems they compromise.…
A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
21–30 of 44 posts
Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#22Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about you, but for ethical reasons, I only allow libre rootkits to run on my systems.
It's just like a gun free zone. You glue a prominent sign to your laptop that uses bright colors and an imposing font. "No proprietary software permitted!" Problem solved.
which i find very entertaining, saying "a sign can't stop a criminal!" as if that's not the case with any law enforced via threat of criminal prosecution
Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#24> The Ftrace mechanism can be disabled at run time, of course — so Singularity helpfully enables it automatically and blocks any attempts to turn it off. Can a kernel be compiled with Ftrace forced off? If it can be disabled at runtime, I take it it's not mandatory for the kernel to work. And I don't just mean off: I mean striping the Ftrace code path (dead code elimination or whatever). I'm also interested in other…
grep FTRACE /boot/config*
Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#25as much as I'm all for the freedom of knownledge, given the sorry state of the world, releasing these tools to imbecils is not peak foresight.. mcafee for linux next ha../s
This effort is more useful to up and coming defenders and security researchers than attackers by far.
Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#26Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#27> If one did wish to use Singularity for nefarious purposes, however, the code is MIT licensed and freely available — using it in that way would only be a crime, not an instance of copyright infringement. Too bad the author picked the MIT license. Had they picked (A)GPL, it would have forced the criminals to distribute a copy of LICENSE.TXT alongside their improved copy of the source code on systems they compromise.…
Well-made distinction; +1.
Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#28> If one did wish to use Singularity for nefarious purposes, however, the code is MIT licensed and freely available — using it in that way would only be a crime, not an instance of copyright infringement. Too bad the author picked the MIT license. Had they picked (A)GPL, it would have forced the criminals to distribute a copy of LICENSE.TXT alongside their improved copy of the source code on systems they compromise.…
Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how to exceed the normal limits on Linux kernel modules. Uh, what limits? I'm not aware of anything that would stop your module, once probed, from reaching around the back of the kernel and futzing around in the internals of another driver/device in a completely unrelated subsystem, or subsystem internals. SoC/SoM vendors love to pull that kind of crap in their BSPs. > hooks the VFS to allow dynamically remapping f…
> use LD_PRELOAD to wrap fopen/open/openat (I'm pretty sure, ready made solutions for this already exist) I think I would literally recompile libc to patch fopen/open/openat long before I would even begin to consider writing a kernel module to mess with filesystem paths on a per-process basis. I feel like if you find yourself seriously considering writing a kernel module then you are either contributing to kernel dev…
> I think I would literally recompile libc to patch fopen/open/openat
That's literally the functionality that LD_PRELOAD provides without having to recompile libc.
Re: A free and open-source rootkit for Linux
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just like a gun free zone. You glue a prominent sign to your laptop that uses bright colors and an imposing font. "No proprietary software permitted!" Problem solved.
i think this comment is referring to the uniquely american controversy over "gun free zones", ie zones where... you aren't allowed to carry firearms by law, often marked with a sign which i find very entertaining, saying "a sign can't stop a criminal!" as if that's not the case with any law enforced via threat of criminal prosecution
Another great one is "drug free zone" seen plastered all over a seedy highschool. Drugs are blanket illegal everywhere here. The US has made an art form out of persecuting drug users. We've peddled our "war on drugs" globally. What could possibly be the point of posting such a sign?