linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Deter exploit bruteforcing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:00:08 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
	DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, vdavydov@...allels.com,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Deter exploit bruteforcing

Am 02.01.2015 um 06:11 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Tue 2014-12-30 10:40:15, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>>> While exploring the offset2lib attack I remembered that
>>> grsecurity has an interesting feature to make such attacks
>>> much harder. Exploits can brute stack canaries often very easily
>>> if the target is a forking server like sshd or Apache httpd.
>>> The problem is that after fork() the child has by definition
>>> exactly the same memory as the parent and therefore also the same
>>> stack canaries.
>>> The attacker can guess the stack canaries byte by byte.
>>> After 256 times 7 forks() a good exploit can find the correct
>>> canary value.
>>>
>>> The basic idea behind this patch is to delay fork() if a child died
>>> due to a fatal error.
>>> Currently it delays fork() by 30 seconds if the parent tries to fork()
>>> within 60 seconds after a child died due to a fatal error.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you'll hate this patch but I want to find out how much you hate it
>>> and whether there is a little chance to get it mainline in a modified form.
>>> Later I'd make it depend on a new Kconfig option and off by default
>>> and the timing constants changeable via sysctl.
> 
> Does this break trinity, crashme, and similar programs?

If they fork() without execve() and a child dies very fast the next fork()
will be throttled.
This is why I'd like to make this feature disabled by default.

> Can you detect it died due to the stack canary? Then, the patch might
> be actually acceptable.

I don't think so as this is glibc specific.

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/