You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Qubes 4.3 has a new "prohibit-start" feature that prevents a VM from being started. h/t to @deeplow for pointing out the new feature.
Prevents qube from being started in anyway. By setting prohibit-start feature value of a qube to any non-empty string, the system will refuse to start it at all conditions (via qvm-run, qrexec, Qube Manager, ...). This is useful for known compromised qubes, awating some forensic analysis; templates user really need to keep in the original, unmodified state; qubes user want to re-configure and need not automatically started but the qube is a target of frequent qrexec calls. Feature value could contain the rationale for the start ban.
Note: prohibit-start for a TemplateVM does not forbid start of AppVMs based on it.
We should apply this to our dispVM templates, which I believe is just sd-viewer.
As a side-effect of the mime-handling service, we do trigger a shutdown of sd-viewer as soon as its started, but in theory that's susceptible to race conditions and really just is a side-effect.
How would this affect the SecureDrop Workstation threat model?
Somewhat harder to compromise a sd-viewer dispVM by editing the template. More realistically, it prevents people from accidentally messing with dispVM templates.
User Stories
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Description
Qubes 4.3 has a new "prohibit-start" feature that prevents a VM from being started. h/t to @deeplow for pointing out the new feature.
We should apply this to our dispVM templates, which I believe is just sd-viewer.
How will this impact SecureDrop/SecureDrop Workstation users?
As a side-effect of the mime-handling service, we do trigger a shutdown of sd-viewer as soon as its started, but in theory that's susceptible to race conditions and really just is a side-effect.
How would this affect the SecureDrop Workstation threat model?
User Stories
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: