linux-kernel - Re: A basic question about the security

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: <20091227145428.GA19414@hallyn.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:54:28 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	serue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A basic question about the security_* hooks

Quoting Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu):
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:02:54 +0900, Tetsuo Handa said:
> > I believe TOMOYO can safely coexist with other security modules.
> > Why TOMOYO must not be used with SELinux or Smack or AppArmor?
> > What interference are you worrying when enabling TOMOYO with SELinux or Smack
> > or AppArmor?

...

> First, it's possible to totally screw up your box - consider 2 defective
> policies where each prevents a reload of the other's policy.  Now note that it
> doesn't even need to be the *policy* - if the Tomoyo policy files get
> mislabeled with the wrong SELinux context, then an SELinux component will
> probably prevent access to the policy and thus prevent the load.  Your system
> is now *at best* running SELinux-only (and now vulnerable to to any attacks you
> were depending on Tomoyo to stop). At worst, the wrecked Tomoyo policy will
> mean that Tomoyo will then reject the SELinux 'restorecon' command to correct
> the labels, leaving you in a situation where you can't recover your box.
> 
> Second, it's unclear what a combo of two different MAC systems would *mean*,
> and whether it creates corner cases that can be exploited - the "two systems
> block each other's reloads" mentioned above is but one example. If a system that
> depends on inode labeling is active at the same time as a path-based system,
> what happens if you manage to do an 'mv' command that changes the security
> context in the path-based system while leaving the inode label the same, or
> relabel an inode without rename it to match? The file has just experienced
> a security transition for one system, but not the other. Are there any
> files and transitions where the mismatch matters?
> 
> If the two systems load policies with the same semantics, why are you
> bothering?  And if they load different semantics, can the difference be
> leveraged by an attacker?

Agree with everything Valdis said (including after this part, which I cut).

Why do you compose the two?  I assume you went to the trouble because
you have a specific use case, a definite advantage?

-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/