[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131213130648.GA10870@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:06:48 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
vegard.nossum@...cle.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection
* Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com> wrote:
> On 13/12/13 08:13, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:52:24PM +0100, vegard.nossum@...cle.com wrote:
> >>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
> >>>
> >>> The idea is simple -- since different kernel versions are vulnerable to
> >>> different root exploits, hackers most likely try multiple exploits before
> >>> they actually succeed.
> >
> > I like this idea. It serves a few purposes, not the least of which is
> > very clearly marking in code where we've had problems, regardless of
> > the fact that it reports badness to the system owner. And I think
> > getting any additional notifications about bad behavior is a nice idea
> > too.
>
> Though, if an attacker is running through a series of exploits, and
> one eventually succeeds then the first thing to do would be to clean
> traces of the _exploit() notifications from the syslog. [...]
There are several solutions to that:
1)
Critical sites use remote logging over a fast LAN, so a successful
exploit would have to zap the remote logging daemon pretty quickly
before the log message goes out over the network.
2)
Some sites also log to append-only media [such as a printer] or other
append-only storage interfaces - which cannot be manipulated from the
attacked system alone after a successful break-in.
3)
In future the exploit() code could trigger actual active defensive
measures, such as immediately freezing all tasks of that UID and
blocking further fork()s/exec()s of that UID.
Depending on how critical the security of the system is, such active
measures might still be a preferable outcome even if there's a chance
of false positives. (Such active measures that freeze the UID will
also help with forensics, if the attack is indeed real.)
> [...] Since running through a series of exploits is pretty quick,
> this can probably all be done before the sysadmin ever notices.
It's not necessarily the sysadmin the attacker is racing against, but
against append-only logging and other defensive measures - which too
are programs.
> The _exploit() notifications could also be used to spam the syslogs.
> Although they are individually ratelimited, if there are enough
> _exploit() markers in the kernel then an annoying person can cycle
> through them all to generate large amounts of useless syslog.
AFAICS they are globally rate-limited, just like many other
attacker-triggerable printk()s the kernel may generate.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists