netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_condition: add security capability 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: <4C91292F.3090602@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:14:39 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...ia.com>
CC:	ext Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	M�kel� Juhani 
	<ext-juhani.3.makela@...ia.com>,
	ext Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_condition: add security capability support

Am 27.08.2010 09:55, schrieb Luciano Coelho:
> That's what I tried to say when I said that we have a security team
> taking care of this.  They are implementing solutions to make the
> product more secure, defending it against malware, misuse, attacks and
> other such things.  In this specific case, security-wise, we are trying
> to prevent some bogus or malicious application from changing our
> netfilter rules and causing havoc.
> 
> LSM doesn't seem to be an option, here I quote Juhani (my colleague from
> our security team):
> 
>> The problem with capabilites is that they are assigned to binaries, not
>> users. Kind of a setuid-mechanism, really. In our embedded environment
>> that makes a lot of sense, but in a server-type environment with
>> multiple users and a competent sysadmin, not so much. In such an
>> environment using a LSM might also actually make sense. But for us it's
>> not an option, mostly because LSMs are not stackable - you can have only
>> one effective at any time - and I'm afraid we have already reserved some
>> of the LSM hooks.
> 
> Maybe Juhani can clarify this a bit more.
> 
> One other idea that Juhani had was to add an option to the condition
> match/target where the capability requiremets could be set, instead of
> checking them by default.  If nothing is specified, everything still
> works as before (no caps checks).  Or even a Kconfig option?

I agree with Jan, adding module parameters to control permission checks
or capabilities seems like a bad precedent.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html