linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] extend kexec_file

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:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:46:04 +1000
From:	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Stewart Smith <stewart@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, bhe@...hat.com,
	arnd@...db.de, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	dyoung@...hat.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] extend kexec_file_load system call

On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 14:22 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 06:40:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:03:38AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:26:39AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed - maybe Eric knows better, but I can't see any situation where
> > > > the dtb we load via kexec should ever affect "the bootloader", unless
> > > > the "kernel" that's being loaded into kexec is "the bootloader".
> > > > 
> > > > Now, going back to the more fundamental issue raised in my first reply,
> > > > about the kernel command line.
> > > > 
> > > > On x86, I can see that it _is_ possible for userspace to specify a
> > > > command line, and the kernel loading the image provides the command
> > > > line to the to-be-kexeced kernel with very little checking.  So, if
> > > > your kernel is signed, what stops the "insecure userspace" loading
> > > > a signed kernel but giving it an insecure rootfs and/or console?
> > > It is not kexec specific. I could do this for regular boot too, right?
> > > 
> > > Command line options are not signed. I thought idea behind secureboot
> > > was to execute only trusted code and command line options don't enforce
> > > you to execute unsigned code.
> > > 

You can set module.sig_enforce=0 and open up the system a bit assuming
that you can get a module to load with another attack

> > > So it sounds like different class of security problems which you are
> > > referring to and not necessarily covered by secureboot or signed
> > > kernel.
> > Let me give you an example.
> > 
> > You have a secure boot setup, where the firmware/ROM validates the boot
> > loader.  Good, the boot loader hasn't been tampered with.
> > 
> > You interrupt the boot loader and are able to modify the command line
> > for the booted kernel.
> > 
> > The boot loader loads the kernel and verifies the kernel's signature.
> > Good, the kernel hasn't been tampered with.  The kernel starts running.
> > 
> > You've plugged in a USB drive to the device, and specified a partition
> > containing a root filesystem that you control to the kernel.  The
> > validated kernel finds the USB drive, and mounts it, and executes
> > your own binaries on the USB drive.
> You will require physical access to the machine to be able to
> insert your usb drive. And IIRC, argument was that if attacker has
> physical access to machine, all bets are off anyway.
>

You don't need physical access -- your machine controller BMC can
do the magic for you. So its not always physical access, is it?
 
> > 
> > 
> > You run a shell on the console.  You now have control of the system,
> > and can mount the real rootfs, inspect it, and work out what it does,
> > etc.
> > 
> > At this point, what use was all the validation that the secure boot
> > has done?  Absolutely useless.
> > 
> > If you can change the command line arguments given to the kernel, you
> > have no security, no matter how much you verify signatures.  It's
> > the illusion of security, nothing more, nothing less.
> > 

I agree, if you can change command line arguments, all bets are of lesser value

Balbir Singh