linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 next 0/3] modules: automatic module loading restrictions

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: <20170522164323.GA2048@openwall.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2017 18:43:23 +0200
From:   Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To:     Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Zendyani <zendyani@...il.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v4 next 0/3] modules: automatic module loading restrictions

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 03:49:15PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 01:57:03PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> >> *) When modules_autoload_mode is set to (2), automatic module loading is
> >> disabled for all. Once set, this value can not be changed.
> >
> > What purpose does this securelevel-like property ("Once set, this value
> > can not be changed.") serve here?  I think this mode 2 is needed, but
> > without this extra property, which is bypassable by e.g. explicitly
> > loaded kernel modules anyway (and that's OK).
> 
> My reasoning about "Once set, this value can not be changed" is mainly for:
> 
> If you have some systems where modules are not updated for any given
> reason, then the only one who will be able to load a module is an
> administrator, basically this is a shortcut for:
> 
> * Apps/services can run with CAP_NET_ADMIN but they are not allowed to
> auto-load 'netdev' modules.
> 
> * Explicitly loading modules can be guarded by seccomp filters *per*
> app, so even if these apps have
>   CAP_SYS_MODULE they won't be able to explicitly load modules, one
> has to remount some sysctl /proc/ entries read-only here and remove
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN for all apps anyway.
> 
> This mainly serves the purpose of these systems that do not receive
> updates, if I don't want to expose those kernel interfaces what should
> I do ? then if I want to unload old versions and replace them with new
> ones what operation should be allowed ? and only real root of the
> system can do it. Hence, the "Once set, this value can not be changed"
> is more of a shortcut, also the idea was put in my mind based on how
> "modules_disabled" is disabled forever, and some other interfaces. I
> would say: it is easy to handle a transition from 1) "hey this system
> is still up to date, some features should be exposed" to 2) "this
> system is not up to date anymore, only root should expose some
> features..."
> 
> Hmm, I am not sure if this answers your question ? :-)

This answers my question, but in a way that I summarize as "there's no
good reason to include this securelevel-like property".

> I definitively don't want to fall into "modules_disabled" trap where
> is it too strict! "Once set, this value can not be changed" means for
> some users do not set it otherwise the system is unusable...
> 
> Maybe an extra "4" mode for that ? better get it right.

I think you should simply exclude this property from mode 2.

The module autoloading restrictions aren't meant to reduce root's
powers; they're only meant to protect processes from shooting themselves
and the system in the foot inadvertently (confused deputy).

modules_disabled may be different in that respect, although with the
rest of the kernel lacking securelevel-like support the point is moot.

We had working securelevel in 2.0.34 through 2.0.40 inclusive, but
we've lost it in 2.1+ with cap-bound apparently never becoming as
complete a replacement for it and having been lost/broken further in
2.6.25+.  I regret this, but that's a different story.  Like I say,
module autoloading doesn't even fit in with those restrictions - it's
about a totally different threat model.

Alexander