Skip to main content
Information Security

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • Thanks for the detailed answer, mounting is really akin to granting root access (tried it as an experiment). And what can you say about my fstab rule, how can it be dangerous? Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 15:22
  • 4
    Assuming this is an internal disk, it is unlikely to have malicious modifications made to it, and just by having it in fstab you are restricting mount options, so it's probably fine. You already have two of the mitigations in place. Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 15:25
  • There wasn't always a check for mounting the same device twice. Cue corrupt kernel memory. Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 3:01
  • @user10489 Having it in /etc/fstab does not actually restrict mount options on Linux, just specifying both device and mount point when mounting causes options in /etc/fstab to be ignored by default with the version of mount provided by util-inux (and it also has options to ignore the options in /etc/fstab even if you just specify device or mount point). Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 13:43
  • 2
    Yes, @AustinHemmelgarn, but mounting that way requires privilege. So although it is true that fstab entries do not limit the possible mount options for filesystems, they do not only limit but explicitly specify the mount options that apply to unprivileged mounting enabled by the appearance of the user option in such an entry. Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 17:32