[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240711.sequuGhee0th@digikod.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:57:42 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>, Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>, Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jordan R Abrahams <ajordanr@...gle.com>,
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>, Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, "Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....gouv.fr>,
Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>, Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>,
Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>, Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v19 2/5] security: Add new SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and
SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT securebits
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 09:26:14AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:58:25AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > Here is another proposal:
> >
> > We can change a bit the semantic by making it the norm to always check
> > file executability with AT_CHECK, and using the securebits to restrict
> > file interpretation and/or command injection (e.g. user supplied shell
> > commands). Non-executable checked files can be reported/logged at the
> > kernel level, with audit, configured by sysadmins.
> >
> > New securebits (feel free to propose better names):
> >
> > - SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE: requires AT_CHECK to pass.
>
> Would you want the enforcement of this bit done by userspace or the
> kernel?
>
> IIUC, userspace would always perform AT_CHECK regardless of
> SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE, and then which would happen?
>
> 1) userspace would ignore errors from AT_CHECK when
> SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE is unset
Yes, that's the idea.
>
> or
>
> 2) kernel would allow all AT_CHECK when SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE is
> unset
>
> I suspect 1 is best and what you intend, given that
> SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE can only be enforced by userspace.
Indeed. We don't want AT_CHECK's behavior to change according to
securebits.
>
> > - SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE: deny any command injection via
> > command line arguments, environment variables, or configuration files.
> > This should be ignored by dynamic linkers. We could also have an
> > allow-list of shells for which this bit is not set, managed by an
> > LSM's policy, if the native securebits scoping approach is not enough.
> >
> > Different modes for script interpreters:
> >
> > 1. RESTRICT_FILE=0 DENY_INTERACTIVE=0 (default)
> > Always interpret scripts, and allow arbitrary user commands.
> > => No threat, everyone and everything is trusted, but we can get
> > ahead of potential issues with logs to prepare for a migration to a
> > restrictive mode.
> >
> > 2. RESTRICT_FILE=1 DENY_INTERACTIVE=0
> > Deny script interpretation if they are not executable, and allow
> > arbitrary user commands.
> > => Threat: (potential) malicious scripts run by trusted (and not
> > fooled) users. That could protect against unintended script
> > executions (e.g. sh /tmp/*.sh).
> > ==> Makes sense for (semi-restricted) user sessions.
> >
> > 3. RESTRICT_FILE=1 DENY_INTERACTIVE=1
> > Deny script interpretation if they are not executable, and also deny
> > any arbitrary user commands.
> > => Threat: malicious scripts run by untrusted users.
> > ==> Makes sense for system services executing scripts.
> >
> > 4. RESTRICT_FILE=0 DENY_INTERACTIVE=1
> > Always interpret scripts, but deny arbitrary user commands.
> > => Goal: monitor/measure/assess script content (e.g. with IMA/EVM) in
> > a system where the access rights are not (yet) ready. Arbitrary
> > user commands would be much more difficult to monitor.
> > ==> First step of restricting system services that should not
> > directly pass arbitrary commands to shells.
>
> I like these bits!
Good! Jeff, Steve, Florian, Matt, others, what do you think?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists