linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] ima: Differentiate auditing policy rules from "audit" actions

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:   Wed, 30 May 2018 18:15:31 -0400
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] ima: Differentiate auditing policy rules from "audit"
 actions

On 05/30/2018 06:00 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 17:49 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> So the other choice is to only keep patches 1,2, 6, and 7, so leave most
>> of the integrity audit messages untouched. Then only create a different
>> format for the new AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE (current 8/8) that shares
>> (for consistency reasons) the same format with the existing integrity
>> audit messages but also misses tty= and exe= ?
> Another option would be for the new AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE to
> call audit_log_task_info() similar to what ima_audit_measurement()
> does.

Right. [That would mean keep 1,2, 7 and modify 8.] Is that the best 
solution?

>
> Mimi