linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or inheritable 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:	Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:16:25 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-audit@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.ok, sgrubb@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or
	inheritable capabilities

Quoting Andrew G. Morgan (morgan@...nel.org):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Eric Paris wrote:
> > Any time fcaps are used to increase a processes pP or pE we will crate a new
> > audit record which contains the entire set of known information about the 
> > executable in question, fP, fI, fE, version and includes the parent processes
> > pE, pI, pP.  This record type will only be emitted from execve syscalls.
> 
> I'm confused by the choice of when to log this event.
> 
> File capabilities are required to give a process 'any' active
> capabilities. That is they don't affect pI -> pI', but without fI or fP,
> the post-execve() process is guaranteed to have no pP or pE capabilities.
> 
> Logging execve()s where there is only an increase in capabilities seems
> wrong to me. To me it seems equally important to log any event where an
> execve() yields pP != 0.

True.

... except if (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) I guess?

And then it also might be interesting in the case where
(!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) and pP is not full.

> > diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
> > index 888b292..9bb285d 100644
> > --- a/security/commoncap.c
> > +++ b/security/commoncap.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> >   */
> >  
> >  #include <linux/capability.h>
> > +#include <linux/audit.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > @@ -320,6 +321,8 @@ static int get_file_caps(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> >  
> >  	rc = bprm_caps_from_vfs_caps(&vcaps, bprm);
> >  
> > +	audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, &vcaps);
> > +
> 
> When rc != 0, the execve() will fail. Is it appropriate to log in this case?

It might fail because fP contains bits not in pP', right?  That's
probably interesting to auditors.

-serge
--
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/