A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Guillaume SH
Hi project, Following the two previous threads, I am posting here a draft patch implementing my proposal. So, to begin with I will remind you the principle : All function callable from outside wine, should be added sanity checks : if safe_mode_on and (sanity_check1_failed or

Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Paul TBBle Hampson
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 09:11:29AM +0100, Guillaume SH wrote: I tested the two modes with the help of wine test suite, restricted to kernel/file.c, test_overlapped and I considered only : all must-be-successful tests GetOverlappedResult(0, NULL, result, FALSE);

Fwd: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Guillaume SH
-- Forwarded message -- From: Guillaume SH gsh.debianli...@gmail.com Date: 2009/2/1 Subject: Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal To: Marcus Meissner mar...@jet.franken.de Hi Marcus, I stand corrected, as it appears I was way too naive in my

Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Paul TBBle Hampson
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:41:25AM +0100, Guillaume SH wrote: Imagine an ill-intentioned people, call it the attackers. By the mean of simply creating the following C application (based on classical Hello word) : #include needed header int main (int argc, char * argv[]) { /* printf (

Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Paul TBBle Hampson
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 01:23:49PM +0100, Guillaume SH wrote: Basically, yes I don't know what the exploit is (there's no magic in there : possibility for an exploit is enough to justify action). So without the magic, there's no demonstrated possibility for an exploit, so the justification goes

Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Reece Dunn
2009/2/1 Marcus Meissner mar...@jet.franken.de: On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:41:25AM +0100, Guillaume SH wrote: Running this application on wine, I get to have my crash, with the possibility of an exploit. So all I have to do know is to find a vector to make you and some other people willing to

Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Guillaume SH
Paul, Basically, yes I don't know what the exploit is (there's no magic in there : possibility for an exploit is enough to justify action). But I don't ask for an API breakage, I propose wine to support two modes : one with API misuse checks and one strictly the same behaviour as Windows. This

Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Guillaume SH
Hi Paul, You asked me to actually describe the security I am concerned about, so I am going for it : Imagine an ill-intentioned people, call it the attackers. By the mean of simply creating the following C application (based on classical Hello word) : #include needed header int main (int

Re: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Marcus Meissner
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:41:25AM +0100, Guillaume SH wrote: Hi Paul, You asked me to actually describe the security I am concerned about, so I am going for it : Imagine an ill-intentioned people, call it the attackers. By the mean of simply creating the following C application (based on

Re: Fwd: A basic implementation for increased security in wine proposal

2009-02-01 Thread Stefan Dösinger
I stand corrected, as it appears I was way too naive in my understanding of software security, hence the example I provided. IMHO the whole discussion is moot. Any Windows app can easilly bypass *any* security measure in Wine by calling int 0x80, and there's nothing we can do against that