linux-kernel - Re: [capabilities] Allow normal inheritance for a configurable set of capabilities

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:	Thu, 5 Feb 2015 01:20:42 +0100
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Aaron Jones <aaronmdjones@...il.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [capabilities] Allow normal inheritance for a configurable set
 of capabilities

Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com):
> On 2/2/2015 10:08 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com):
> >> I'm game to participate in such an effort. The POSIX scheme
> >> is workable, but given that it's 20 years old and hasn't
> >> developed real traction it's hard to call it successful.
> > Over the years we've several times discussed possible reasons for this
> > and how to help.  I personally think it's two things:  1. lack of
> > toolchain and fs support.  The fact that we cannot to this day enable
> > ping using capabilities by default because of cpio, tar and non-xattr
> > filesystems is disheartening.  2. It's hard for users and applications
> > to know what caps they need.  yes the API is a bear to use, but we can
> > hide that behind fancier libraries.  But using capabilities requires too
> > much in-depth knowledge of precisely what caps you might need for
> > whatever operations library may now do when you asked for something.
> 
> The fix for that is to a change to the audit system. If the audit system
> reported the capabilities relevant to the decision you'd have what you
> need. If you failed because you didn't have CAP_CHMOD or you succeeded
> because you had CAP_SYS_ADMIN it should show up in the audit record.
> Other systems have used this approach.
> 
> You could, of course, create a separate capability result log, and I
> believe that Nokia had done something along those lines. I think that
> adding it to the audit trail is a more rational approach.

I wonder how much that would end up affecting performance, assuming it
left an audit message at every ns_capable() failure.  Even if it was
only done under a certain sysctl, it could certainly be useful.
--
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/