<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Capabilities on *scratch*</title>
    <link>https://www.scrivano.org/tags/capabilities/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Capabilities on *scratch*</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 19:18:55 +0200</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.scrivano.org/tags/capabilities/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Why CAP_SYS_PTRACE is worse than CAP_SYS_ADMIN</title>
      <link>https://www.scrivano.org/posts/2026-09-24-cap-sys-ptrace-is-worse-than-cap-sys-admin/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.scrivano.org/posts/2026-09-24-cap-sys-ptrace-is-worse-than-cap-sys-admin/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I spend a lot of time working on crun and on how containers are kept&#xA;separated from the host.  Capabilities are one of the tools we use for&#xA;that: instead of giving a container the full power of root, we hand out&#xA;only the small pieces it needs.  &lt;code&gt;CAP_SYS_ADMIN&lt;/code&gt; gets most of the&#xA;attention, since it is so powerful that people call it the new root, and&#xA;dropping it is often treated as enough to make a container safe.  I want&#xA;to look at another capability that doesn&amp;rsquo;t sound so dangerous:&#xA;&lt;code&gt;CAP_SYS_PTRACE&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
