linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ima: only audit failed appraisal verifications

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:   Mon, 20 May 2019 17:20:25 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...wei.com, mjg59@...gle.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ima: only audit failed appraisal verifications

On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> This patch ensures that integrity_audit_msg() is called only when the
> status is not INTEGRITY_PASS.
> 
> Fixes: 8606404fa555c ("ima: digital signature verification support")
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> index a32ed5d7afd1..f5f4506bcb8e 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> @@ -359,8 +359,9 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>  			status = INTEGRITY_PASS;
>  		}
>  
> -		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
> -				    op, cause, rc, 0);
> +		if (status != INTEGRITY_PASS)
> +			integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode,
> +					    filename, op, cause, rc, 0);

For some reason, the integrity verification has failed.  In some
specific cases, we'll let it pass, but do we really want to remove any
indication that it failed in all cases?

Mimi


>  	} else {
>  		ima_cache_flags(iint, func);
>  	}