| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1570049041.4421.40.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 16:44:01 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
Matthew Garret <matthew.garret@...ula.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@...ibm.com>,
Eric Ricther <erichte@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/9] ima: check against blacklisted hashes for files
with modsig
On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 10:25 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> Asymmetric private keys are used to sign multiple files. The kernel
> currently support checking against the blacklisted keys. However, if the
> public key is blacklisted, any file signed by the blacklisted key will
> automatically fail signature verification. We might not want to blacklist
> all the files signed by a particular key, but just a single file.
> Blacklisting the public key is not fine enough granularity.
>
> This patch adds support for blacklisting binaries with appended signatures,
> based on the IMA policy. Defined is a new policy option
> "appraise_flag=check_blacklist".
>
> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 1 +
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 12 +++++++++
> security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 8 ++++--
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 10 ++++++--
> security/integrity/integrity.h | 1 +
> 6 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> index 29ebe9afdac4..4c97afcc0f3c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ Description:
> lsm: [[subj_user=] [subj_role=] [subj_type=]
> [obj_user=] [obj_role=] [obj_type=]]
> option: [[appraise_type=]] [template=] [permit_directio]
> + [appraise_flag=[check_blacklist]]
> base: func:= [BPRM_CHECK][MMAP_CHECK][CREDS_CHECK][FILE_CHECK][MODULE_CHECK]
> [FIRMWARE_CHECK]
> [KEXEC_KERNEL_CHECK] [KEXEC_INITRAMFS_CHECK]
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> index 9bf509217e8e..2c034728b239 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> @@ -254,6 +254,9 @@ int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v);
> #define IMA_APPRAISE_KEXEC 0x40
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE
> +int ima_blacklist_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> + const struct modsig *modsig, int action,
> + int pcr, struct ima_template_desc *template_desc);
> int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
> struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> struct file *file, const unsigned char *filename,
> @@ -269,6 +272,15 @@ int ima_read_xattr(struct dentry *dentry,
> struct evm_ima_xattr_data **xattr_value);
>
> #else
> +static inline int ima_blacklist_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> + const struct modsig *modsig,
> + int action, int pcr,
> + struct ima_template_desc
> + *template_desc)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static inline int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
> struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> struct file *file,
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> index 136ae4e0ee92..a5a82e870e24 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <linux/magic.h>
> #include <linux/ima.h>
> #include <linux/evm.h>
> +#include <keys/system_keyring.h>
>
> #include "ima.h"
>
> @@ -303,6 +304,40 @@ static int modsig_verify(enum ima_hooks func, const struct modsig *modsig,
> return rc;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * ima_blacklist_measurement - checks if the file measurement is blacklisted
> + *
> + * Returns -EKEYREJECTED if the hash is blacklisted.
> + */
In the function comment, please mention that blacklisted binaries are
included in the IMA measurement list.
> +int ima_blacklist_measurement(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> + const struct modsig *modsig, int action, int pcr,
> + struct ima_template_desc *template_desc)
> +{
> + enum hash_algo hash_algo;
> + const u8 *digest = NULL;
> + u32 digestsize = 0;
> + u32 secid;
> + int rc = 0;
> +
> + if (!(iint->flags & IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (iint->flags & IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED) {
> + security_task_getsecid(current, &secid);
> + ima_get_modsig_digest(modsig, &hash_algo, &digest, &digestsize);
> +
> + rc = is_hash_blacklisted(digest, digestsize, "bin");
> +
> + /* Returns -EKEYREJECTED on blacklisted hash found */
is_hash_blacklisted() returning -EKEYREJECTED makes sense if the key
is blacklisted, not so much for a binary. It would make more sense to
define is_binary_blacklisted(), as a wrapper for
is_hash_blacklisted().
> + if ((rc == -EKEYREJECTED) && (iint->flags & IMA_MEASURE))
> + process_buffer_measurement(digest, digestsize,
> + "blacklisted-hash", pcr,
> + template_desc);
For appended signatures, the IMA policy measurement rule would
normally be "template=ima-modsig". Shouldn't the "template_desc" for
blacklisted binaries be "template=ima-buf"?
> + }
> +
> + return rc;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * ima_appraise_measurement - appraise file measurement
> *
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index ae0c1bdc4eaf..92c446045637 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -336,8 +336,12 @@ static int process_measurement(struct file *file, const struct cred *cred,
> template_desc);
> if (rc == 0 && (action & IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK)) {
> inode_lock(inode);
The lock is needed for updating the extended attributes (in IMA fix
mode). Please limit taking the lock to ima_appraise_measurement().
> - rc = ima_appraise_measurement(func, iint, file, pathname,
> - xattr_value, xattr_len, modsig);
> + rc = ima_blacklist_measurement(iint, modsig, action, pcr,
> + template_desc);
process_measurement() calls a number of functions: ima_collect_measurement(), ima_store_measurement(), ima_appraise_measurement() and ima_audit_measurement(). The action is contained within the name (eg. collect, store, appraise, audit). "blacklist" implies the function is blacklisting a file hash, as opposed to checking whether the file hash is already black listed. Changing the tense from "blacklist" to "blacklisted" would help.
Renaming the function to "ima_is_binary_blacklisted" would be even better.
Mimi
> + if (rc != -EKEYREJECTED)
> + rc = ima_appraise_measurement(func, iint, file,
> + pathname, xattr_value,
> + xattr_len, modsig);
> inode_unlock(inode);
> if (!rc)
> rc = mmap_violation_check(func, file, &pathbuf,
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 4badc4fcda98..ad3b3af69460 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -765,8 +765,8 @@ enum {
> Opt_fsuuid, Opt_uid_eq, Opt_euid_eq, Opt_fowner_eq,
> Opt_uid_gt, Opt_euid_gt, Opt_fowner_gt,
> Opt_uid_lt, Opt_euid_lt, Opt_fowner_lt,
> - Opt_appraise_type, Opt_permit_directio,
> - Opt_pcr, Opt_template, Opt_err
> + Opt_appraise_type, Opt_appraise_flag,
> + Opt_permit_directio, Opt_pcr, Opt_template, Opt_err
> };
>
> static const match_table_t policy_tokens = {
> @@ -798,6 +798,7 @@ static const match_table_t policy_tokens = {
> {Opt_euid_lt, "euid<%s"},
> {Opt_fowner_lt, "fowner<%s"},
> {Opt_appraise_type, "appraise_type=%s"},
> + {Opt_appraise_flag, "appraise_flag=%s"},
> {Opt_permit_directio, "permit_directio"},
> {Opt_pcr, "pcr=%s"},
> {Opt_template, "template=%s"},
> @@ -1172,6 +1173,11 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> else
> result = -EINVAL;
> break;
> + case Opt_appraise_flag:
> + ima_log_string(ab, "appraise_flag", args[0].from);
> + if (strstr(args[0].from, "blacklist"))
> + entry->flags |= IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST;
> + break;
> case Opt_permit_directio:
> entry->flags |= IMA_PERMIT_DIRECTIO;
> break;
> diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> index d9323d31a3a8..73fc286834d7 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> #define EVM_IMMUTABLE_DIGSIG 0x08000000
> #define IMA_FAIL_UNVERIFIABLE_SIGS 0x10000000
> #define IMA_MODSIG_ALLOWED 0x20000000
> +#define IMA_CHECK_BLACKLIST 0x40000000
>
> #define IMA_DO_MASK (IMA_MEASURE | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_AUDIT | \
> IMA_HASH | IMA_APPRAISE_SUBMASK)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists