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  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:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:47:46 -0500
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] ima: digest list feature

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/2017 4:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The code doing the parsing is in the initramfs, which has already been
>> measured at boot time. You can guarantee that it's being done by
>> trusted code.
>
>
> The parser can be executed in the initial ram disk, but everything
> accessed before the parser is executed will be measured/appraised
> without digest lists. To do signature-based remote attestation, where
> the verification consists on checking the signature of digests of
> measured files, it would be necessary to sign systemd, libraries,
> everything accessed before the parser, and the parser. If RPM headers
> are parsed by the kernel, measurement/appraisal will be done directly
> with digest lists.

There's no need to have a policy that measures those files, because
they're part of the already-measured initramfs. Just set the IMA
policy after you've loaded the digest list.

>>> The main problem is that the digest list measurement, performed when the
>>> parser accesses the file containing the RPM header, might not reflect
>>> what IMA uses for digest lookup.
>>
>>
>> Why not?
>
>
> I assumed you wanted to measure digest lists only at the time they are
> read by the parser, and not when they are read by IMA. If instead digest
> lists are verified again after conversion, the new workflow should be:
>
> 1) the kernel parses digest list metadata before systemd is executed
> 2) the kernel verifies the signature of digest lists (RPM headers) and
>    add the digest of digest lists to the hash table, so that appraisal
>    succeeds
> 3) systemd (with file signature) is executed
> 4) the parser (with file signature) is executed
> 5) the parser reads and converts the digest lists to the generic format,
>    and writes them to a tmpfs filesystem
> 6) the parser generates a new digest list metadata file with the path of
>    converted digest lists and sends the path of the new metadata to IMA
> 7) IMA reads the generic digest lists
>
> The measurement list should look like:
>
> 10 <digest> ima-sig <digest> boot_aggregate
> 10 <digest> ima-sig <digest> /etc/ima/digest_lists/metadata
> 10 <digest> ima-sig <digest> /usr/lib/systemd/systemd <signature>
> ...
> 10 <digest> ima-sig <digest> <parser> <signature>
> 10 <digest> ima-sig <digest> /tmp/metadata
>
>
> If parsing of RPM headers is done by the kernel, the measurement list
> will look like:
>
> 10 <digest> ima-ng <digest> boot_aggregate
> 10 <digest> ima-ng <digest> /etc/ima/digest_lists/metadata
>
>
> A built-in policy should enable appraisal of tmpfs. If not, patch 11/15
> disables digest lookup for appraisal. Since generic digest lists will
> have a security.ima extended attribute (they are mutable files),
> appraisal verification will succeed.
>
> With this solution, digital signatures cannot be required, because
> generic digest lists will have a HMAC. For appraisal, it becomes
> necessary to ensure that only digest lists written by the parser can be
> processed by IMA.

This seems very over-complicated, and it's unclear why the kernel
needs to open the file itself. You *know* that all of userland is
trustworthy at this point even in the absence of signatures. It seems
reasonable to provide a interface that allows userland to pass a
digest list to the kernel, in the same way that userland can pass an
IMA policy to the kernel. You can then restrict access to that
interface via an LSM.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists