← Back to context

Comment by chromacity

15 hours ago

This is a pedantry for the sake of it. If it's present by default and an attacker can trivially cause it to be loaded, it's the same as "on by default".

It’s radically different than on by default.

Having a service that automatically starts and listens on the network is radically different from having a module that a local administrator can load.

If you want to block module loads, you’re one sysctl flag away.

  • > having a module that a local administrator can load

    This is a successful local privilege escalation, so local administrator privs were not needed. In default configuration of all distros, apparently.

    > If you want to block module loads, you’re one sysctl flag away.

    The modules aren't really the point, it's that unnecessary features (to 99% of us?) were accessible by default without privs.

  • This is "a service that automatically starts". That's what automatic kernel module loading is for!

    It's not any different from putting an always-running network service behind socket activation instead. The security boundary/risk is nearly identical between the two.