So has the church of the subgenius.
GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
71–80 of 209 posts
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you say implies that people should "learn and improve their English" before posting their work to HN. I'm not with you on that, and here's why: we're trying to optimize for the most-intellectually-interesting site, not the most-English site: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... , even though people do have to post in English here. That may sound like too fine a distinction, but it isn'…
I don’t buy it, Dan, because non-native English speakers were somehow managing to produce, publicize, and communicate before LLMs did the heavy lifting for them. Perhaps they had human assistance before, but the slop that’s so endemic today reminds us of its value.
Not on HN they weren't. Right?
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t buy it, Dan, because non-native English speakers were somehow managing to produce, publicize, and communicate before LLMs did the heavy lifting for them. Perhaps they had human assistance before, but the slop that’s so endemic today reminds us of its value.
Not on HN they weren't. Right?
Non native speakers have been on HN since its inception. Unless you mean something else?
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess, if you thought Docker/etc. was a security boundary
Runpod, digital ocean's gpu cloud, and at least a few others use Linux containers for isolation between tenants (look at Wiz's blog post about the nvidia container toolkit bug; digitalocean just puts everyone in a massive k8s cluster)
Why aren’t they using a fast VM like Firecracker?
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#75Do we really need infosec companies now that a skid with claude can find decades-old kernel privesc over a weekend?
Also can we talk about how bad Linux security is? At this point it's becoming a real liability to run anything on Linux that needs to be secure. OpenBSD has been around for ages, is written in C, and is really, really secure. Do they support containers yet (or microVMs)? Cuz if they do, I'm moving my workloads to obsd.
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess, if you thought Docker/etc. was a security boundary
They are a security boundary. The fact that you need a vulnerability to escape them is proof of that. They just don't have a particularly high cost of escape because reachable kernel vulnerabilities are so common.
Escape from docker containers is trivially easy, if you are able to run as the root user in the container itself.
Many (maybe most) containers actually default to running programs as root. Kernel exploit not required.
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#77Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not on HN they weren't. Right?
Non native speakers have been on HN since its inception. Unless you mean something else?
Sorry, I was posting hastily and can see how that was unclear. Unfortunately I've forgotten my point.
Perhaps it was this: there are many non-native English speakers who have valuable things to contribute to HN, who don't yet have sufficient English or don't feel they do, and therefore resort to LLMs to do their English for them. Should they automatically be excluded?
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#79Does that mean any android app can use ndk native code execution to become root? Does selinux help here?
Re: GhostLock, a stack-UAF that has existed in all Linux distributions for 15 years
#80>Google has rewarded us $92,337 in kernelCTF I'm all ears now
Seems low considering the wide impact, but maybe the only thing corporations throw big money at is remote exploits?
How is it a wide impact?
It requires being able to execute arbitrary code on the machine in userspace. If you have that, most of the time you don't even care about kernel level exploits.