linux-kernel - Re: Hundreds of null PATH records for *init

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: <1506758.nmGZ90BLZd@x2>
Date:   Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:25:30 -0500
From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Hundreds of null PATH records for *init_module syscall audit logs

On Monday, March 6, 2017 4:49:21 PM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Blocking PATH record on creation based on syscall *really* seems like
> > a bad/dangerous idea.  If we want to block all these tracefs/debugfs
> > records, let's just block the fs.  Although as of right now I'm not a
> > fan of blocking anything.
> 
> I agree.  What makes me leery of this approach is if a kernel module in
> turn accesses directly other files, or bypasses the load_module call to
> load another module from a file and avoids logging.

In this case, we want a second event with that module name. We do not want any 
PATH records.

-Steve