linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] AppArmor: Fix masking of capabilities in complain mode

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110629150554.GA18023@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:05:54 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] AppArmor: Fix masking of capabilities in complain
 mode

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:55:18AM +0100, John Johansen wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 05:24 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:44:34AM +0100, John Johansen wrote:
> >> AppArmor is masking the capabilities returned by capget against the
> >> capabilities mask in the profile.  This is wrong, in complain mode the
> >> profile has effectively all capabilities, as the profile restrictions are
> >> not being enforced, merely tested against to determine if an access is
> >> known by the profile.
> >>
> >> This can result in the wrong behavior of security conscience applications
> >> like sshd which examine their capability set, and change their behavior
> >> accordingly.  In this case because of the masked capability set being
> >> returned sshd fails due to DAC checks, even when the profile is in complain
> >> mode.
> >>
> >> Kernels affected: 2.6.36 - 3.0.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
> >> ---
> > 
> > You say that multiple kernels are affected, then why not also include
> > stable@...nel.org here as well?
> > 
> > confused,
> > 
> Sorry I should have elaborated, I think its a borderline case for stable
> release, and was as much a note to my self as anything.

Notes to self probably shouldn't be in kernel changelog entries :)

> The bug doesn't affect the enforcement of policy, only learning mode used
> for generating policy, and it is something we can work around in userspace.
> for already released kernels.
> 
> I can resend with a Cc: stable if you would like

If you don't think it should be in the stable kernel releases, that's
fine, you are the maintainer of the code.  I just found it odd that you
said it affected older kernels and yet didn't want it applied there as
well.

greg k-h
--
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/