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]

Message-ID: <48FD6E49.6060104@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:53:13 -0700
From:	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.ok, sgrubb@...hat.com, serue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or
 inheritable capabilities

-----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.

> 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?

Cheers

Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFI/W5F+bHCR3gb8jsRAhM9AJ9oJL4PmdtMwHEkN0Xh0ZTHBlJPzgCfVT/8
1Rq4wgGWftqpaVXBmeAsEi8=
=W8R9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/