linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signed binaries support [0/4]

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]

Message-ID: <20070621180557.GR12950@stusta.de>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:05:57 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	Alexander Wuerstlein <snalwuer@....informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Cc:	Alexander Wuerstlein <arw@....name>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signed binaries support [0/4]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 07:34:45PM +0200, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> On 070621 19:26, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:29:17PM +0200, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> > > On 070621 18:19, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Johannes Schlumberger wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Johannes,
> > > > 
> > > > > We (two students of CS) built a system for signing binaries and verifying them
> > > > > before executing. Our main focus was to implement a way to inhibit execution
> > > > > of suid-binaries, which are not trustworthy (i.e. not signed).
> > > > >...
> > > > 
> > > > doesn't anyone who is able to install a not trustworthy suid-binary 
> > > > already have the priviliges to do anything he wants to without requiring 
> > > > an suid bit?
> > > 
> > > Yes, quite correct in most cases. But if you have taken control of a computer
> > > on of the more common ways to keep the control for some time is the
> > > installation of a suid-binary (e.g. as part of a rootkit). 
> > 
> > There are so many ways for manipulating a computer that controlling 
> > setuid binaries hardly brings a real security gain.
> 
> Even if it does not really improve security too much it can be helpful as a
> part of a larger system. For example around here we use a 'sbit-checker' that
> basically does a 'find' and 'chmod', which we would be able to replace by this
> patch.

Something that sounds as if it would increase security but doesn't 
really increase security is actually bad since it gives users a false 
impression of security.

> Also our patch is not solely about suid-binaries, we just implemented
> suid-checking because it seemed a simple and obvious thing to do.  Our real aim
> was to implement binary signatures, which can be used in numerous security
> related checks around the kernel. Btw. if you have any good ideas where one
> could use them, please tell us :)

Linux systems usually ship and heavily use interpreters like bash, perl 
or python.

Does writing an ELF loader in perl circumvent everything you want to do?

> Ciao,
> Alexander Wuerstlein.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/