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: <1225317519.23736.60.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:58:39 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-audit@...hat.com, sgrubb@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	sgrubb@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or
 inheritable capabilities

On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 21:13 -0700, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>> ... 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.
> >> I guess so, although this seems like a case of being interested in a
> >> (unusual) non-privileged execve().
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean - but this can only happen if bits are taken
> > out of the capability bounding set, right?
> 
> Yes, it can happen as you say.
> 
> This is a case of an unprivileged uid==0 execution. Since we don't
> appear to want to audit other non-privileged execve()s, its not clear to
> me that this one deserves attention.

So what did you two agree on for when to collect fcaps type information?
Any time bprm->cap_post_exec_permitted is non-zero?

> >>>>>  	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.
> >> In which case, how is the fact it didn't execute captured in the audit log?
> > 
> > I assume as a FAIL?  (Not sure of the exact wording in the logs)
> 
> OK. As long as its clearly identified as a failure and the logs are not
> misleading - making it look like the execve() succeeded with privilege -
> then I'm not as concerned.

The syscall record (rather than this auxilary fcaps record) will
indicate that the syscall failed.  it says something like success=no.

--
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/