linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] WhiteEgret LSM module

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: <20170531153549.GB31189@mail.hallyn.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 10:35:49 -0500
From:   "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...il.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        Masanobu Koike <masanobu2.koike@...hiba.co.jp>,
        james.l.morris@...cle.com, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] WhiteEgret LSM module

Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com):
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2017 3:59 AM, Peter Dolding wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Like you see here in Australian government policy there is another
> > thing called whitelisted.
> > https://www.asd.gov.au/publications/protect/top_4_mitigations_linux.htm
> > Matthew Garrett you might want to call IMA whitelisting Australian
> > government for one does not agree.  IMA is signed.   The difference
> > between signed and white-listed is you might have signed a lot more
> > than what a particular system is white-listed to allowed used.
> >
> To be clear, I'm all for a security module to support this policy.
> As the explicit requirement is for a whitelist, as opposed to allowing
> for a properly configured system*, you can't use any of the existing
> technologies to meet it. This kind of thing** is why we have a LSM
> infrastructure.
> 
> Unfortunately, the implementation proposed has very serious issues.
> You can't do access control from userspace. You can't count on
> identifying programs strictly by pathname. It's much more complicated
> than it needs to be for the task.
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> Create an security module that looks for the attribute
> 
> 	security.WHITELISTED

Bonus, you can have EVM verify the validity of these xattrs, and
IMA verify the interity of the file itself.