linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] ima: uncompressed module appraisal support

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: <1581101672.5585.628.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 07 Feb 2020 13:54:32 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
Cc:     Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        nayna@...ux.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bauerman@...ux.ibm.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] ima: uncompressed module appraisal support

On Fri, 2020-02-07 at 11:45 -0700, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 7, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2020-02-07 at 10:49 -0700, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Feb 7, 2020, at 10:40 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> $ insmod ./foo.ko
> >>>> insmod: ERROR: could not insert module ./foo.ko: Permission denied
> >>>> 
> >>>> last entry from audit log:
> >>>> type=INTEGRITY_DATA msg=audit(1581089373.076:83): pid=2874 uid=0
> >>>> auid=0 ses=1 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-
> >>>> s0:c0.c1023 op=appraise_data cause=invalid-signature comm="insmod"
> >>>> name="/root/keys/modules/foo.ko" dev="dm-0" ino=10918365
> >>>> res=0^]UID="root" AUID=“root"
> >>>> 
> >>>> This is because modsig_verify() will be called from within
> >>>> ima_appraise_measurement(), 
> >>>> since try_modsig is true.  Then modsig_verify() will return
> >>>> INTEGRITY_FAIL.
> >>> 
> >>> Why is it an "invalid signature"?  For that you need to look at the
> >>> kernel messages.  Most likely it can't find the public key on the .ima
> >>> keyring to verify the signature.
> >> 
> >> It is invalid because the module has not been ima signed. 
> > 
> > With the IMA policy rule "appraise func=MODULE_CHECK
> > appraise_type=imasig|modsig", IMA first tries to verify the IMA
> > signature stored as an xattr and on failure then attempts to verify
> > the appended signatures.
> > 
> > The audit message above indicates that there was a signature, but the
> > signature validation failed.
> > 
> 
> I do have  CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG enabled.  I believe the audit message above 
> is coming from modsig_verify in security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c.

Right, and it's calling:

	rc = integrity_modsig_verify(INTEGRITY_KEYRING_IMA, modsig);

It's failing because it is trying to find the public key on the .ima
keyring.  Make sure that the public needed to validate the kernel
module is on the IMA keyring (eg. keyctl show %keyring:.ima).

Mimi