linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ima: Support appraise_type=imasig

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:36:45 +0200
From:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ima: Support appraise_type=imasig_optional

It should not be the only line in the policy.
Can you share full policy?

Thanks,
Dmitry


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:14:55PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
>> Hello Vivek,
>>
>> Can you please send to us how your IMA policy looks like.
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> For testing purposes, I am using following.
>
> appraise fowner=0 func=BPRM_CHECK appraise_type=imasig_optional
>
> I set this using /sys/kernel/security/policy interface after boot.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dmitry
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 01:52:03PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:14:07PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [..]
>> >> > > > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
>> >> > > > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
>> >> > > > > @@ -124,19 +124,26 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(int func, struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
>> >> > > > >       enum integrity_status status = INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
>> >> > > > >       const char *op = "appraise_data";
>> >> > > > >       char *cause = "unknown";
>> >> > > > > -     int rc;
>> >> > > > > +     int rc, audit_info = 0;
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >       if (!ima_appraise)
>> >> > > > >               return 0;
>> >> > > > > -     if (!inode->i_op->getxattr)
>> >> > > > > +     if (!inode->i_op->getxattr) {
>> >> > > > > +             /* getxattr not supported. file couldn't have been signed */
>> >> > > > > +             if (iint->flags & IMA_DIGSIG_OPTIONAL)
>> >> > > > > +                     return INTEGRITY_PASS;
>> >> > > > >               return INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN;
>> >> > > > > +     }
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Please don't change the result of the appraisal like this.  A single
>> >> > > > change can be made towards the bottom of process_measurement().
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I don't want to pass integrity in all cases of INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN. So
>> >> > > I can probably maintain a bool variable, say pass_appraisal, and set
>> >> > > that here and at the end of function, parse that variable and change
>> >> > > the status accordingly.
>> >> >
>> >> > process_measurement() is the only caller of ima_appraise_measurement().
>> >> > Leave the results of ima_appraise_measurement() alone.  There's already
>> >> > code at the end of process_measurement() which decides what to return.
>> >> > Just modify it based on the appraisal results.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If we do this, audit logs will be filled with integrity unknown failures.
>> > As each unsigned executable file will fail appraisal with INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN
>> > and an audit message will be logged.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Vivek
>> > --
>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
>> > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/