linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Capabilities still can't be inherited by normal programs

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: <50C63D4C.9060703@schaufler-ca.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:51:40 -0800
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...onical.com>,
	Markku Savela <msa@...h.iki.fi>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Capabilities still can't be inherited by normal programs

On 12/10/2012 11:31 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Casey Schaufler
> <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2012 10:12 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> I think that the Windows approach is worth looking at.  See here:
>>>
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa375202%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
>>>
>>> In the Windows model, each capability ("privilege") can be in one of
>>> three states: enabled (i.e working right now),
>> Effective
>>
>>>  permitted (i.e.
>>> available upon request but not currently enabled),
>> Permitted
>>
>>> or removed
>>> (disallowed to this process and all of its children).
>> ~Inherited
> No.  It's ~Inherited in a world where every binary has fI = everything.
>
>>> Permitted
>>> privileges are always inherited when a child process is created.
>>>
>>> This is *way* simpler than Linux's model, and it works just fine*.
>> I see a different set of complications, and Windows never had
>> a setuid bit to contend with. God created the universe in seven
>> days, but then, He didn't have an installed base.
>>
> What are those complications?

I wish I had the time to go into the details, but I just can't.

> Also, I think we really could get rid of setuid without breaking
> anything with a bit of extra (non-capability-related) plumbing work.

If RedHat or Ubuntu wanted to take a year off from everything else
they could create a setuid-root free system. It would probably be
easier for Android or ChromiumOS, as they provide more limited
environments.

It's not "a bit of extra plumbing". I did it for a Unix system and
you'll have to change bunches of existing programs to make it work.
I'm not saying that the changes would be bad, but the sendmail
fiasco arose from just such an effort. You'll also have to train
the users that sudo no longer does them any good. In fact, you'll
be barraged with one question:
	"How do I get to be Real root"?


> --Andy
>

--
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/