linux-kernel - Re: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to CAP_FS

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: <20090312160300.GC13046@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:03:00 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	Igor Zhbanov <izh1979@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, neilb@...e.de, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD and
	CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to CAP_FS_MASK?

Quoting J. Bruce Fields (bfields@...ldses.org):
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:53:34PM +0300, Igor Zhbanov wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > It seems that CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE were forgotten to be

(Still looking into this, but meanwhile...)

> > added to CAP_FS_MASK_B0 in linux-2.6.x and to CAP_FS_MASK in
> > linux-2.4.x. Both capabilities affects file system and can be
> > considered file system capabilities.
> 
> Sounds right to me--I'd expect rootsquash to guarantee that new device
> nodes can't be created from the network.  Cc'ing random people from the
> git log for include/linux/capability.h in hopes they can help.
> 
> --b.
> 
> (Also: my copy of mknod(2) claims "Linux... does not have the CAP_MKNOD
> capability".  I assume the manpage is out of date?)

No, the whole paragraph is:

EPERM  mode  requested creation of something other than a regular file, FIFO
(named pipe), or Unix domain socket, and the caller is not privileged
(Linux: does not have the CAP_MKNOD capability);

So it's saying that 'caller is not privileged', in linux, can be
interpreted to mean 'the caller does not have CAP_MKNOD'.

> 
> > 
> > Let's look at linux-2.6.x.
> > 
> > In include/linux/capability.h CAP_FS_SET is defined to contain
> > following capabilities:
> > CAP_CHOWN, CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, CAP_FOWNER,
> > CAP_FSETID and CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE.
> > 
> > And CAP_NFSD_SET is defined to be the same plus CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.
> > 
> > So, both CAP_FS_SET and CAP_NFSD_SET doesn't include CAP_MKNOD and
> > CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE.
> > 
> > Also include/linux/capability.h there are cap_drop_fs_set(...),
> > cap_raise_fs_set(...),
> > cap_drop_nfsd_set(...) and cap_raise_nfsd_set(...) inline functions that return
> > corresponding capabilities sets.
> > 
> > Let's look how these functions are used.
> > 
> > In file fs/nfsd/auth.c function nfsd_setuser(...) calls
> > cap_raise_nfsd_set(...) and
> > cap_drop_nfsd_set(...) to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from
> > effective set of current nfsd process.
> > 
> > And in file security/commoncap.c function cap_task_post_setuid(...) calls
> > cap_drop_fs_set(...) and cap_raise_fs_set(...) to change effective set
> > of current task
> > when (current->fsuid != old_ruid).
> > 
> > In linux-2.4.x the story is the same.
> > 
> > In file include/linux/capability.h CAP_FS_MASK is defined to contain
> > CAP_CHOWN, CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, CAP_FOWNER, CAP_FSETID
> > capabilities.
> > 
> > And in file fs/nfsd/auth.c CAP_NFSD_MASK is defined to be same as CAP_FS_MASK
> > plus CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.
> > 
> > In file fs/nfsd/auth.c function nfsd_setuser(...) uses CAP_NFSD_MASK
> > to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from effective set of current
> > nfsd process.
> > 
> > And CAP_FS_MASK used in file kernel/sys.c in function sys_setfsuid(...)
> > to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from effective set of current task.
> > 
> > This can be exploited (and I have succesfully tried it).
> > 
> > Suppose you have NFS-share exported even with root_squash option.
> > If one client was compromised, local root can set CAP_MKNOD to some
> > local user's process. Then that user can execute mknod to create a device
> > that will be owned by that user, e.g. block device file for /dev/hda hard drive.
> > 
> > And he can create that device file on NFS-share (even exported with root_squash
> > option). After that he can someway (ssh, cgi) execute code on another nfs client
> > or the server to modify it's filesystem. It will be possible because
> > he owns that
> > device file on nfs share.
> > 
> > The problem is because CAP_MKNOD allows that user to successfully execute
> > vfs_mknod(...) function on local host, and that function will call corresponding
> > function in nfs module which sends request to NFS server. And nfsd will not
> > drop CAP_MKNOD in nfsd_setuser(...) function when impersonating to that user.
> > 
> > Of course, NFS-shares can be mounted with nodev option, but they should be
> > placed on separate partition on NFS-server, so even on server that partition
> > is mounted with nodev option too.
> > 
> > So I suggest to add CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE to CAP_FS_MASK
> > in linux-2.4.x and to CAP_FS_MASK_B0 in linux-2.6.x.
--
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/