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:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:55:23 -0500
From:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>, 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

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
> 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.)

I would recommend adding the CVSS score or some other quantifiable
attribute to the exploit() call, eg:

	exploit("CVE-2011-4330", 72);

Or, optionally, maintaining a lut of CVE -> severity number.  Then the
user can decide how to respond to different levels of exploits.

So, >80 freezes all tasks of the UID, email user
    >30, <80 emails user
    <30 just logs it.

I'm swagging this, my point is the user needs a concrete, configurable
way to be alerted / respond.

thx,

Jason.
--
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