netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xtables: lightweight process control group matching

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: <52654CE6.7030706@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:48:54 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, pablo@...filter.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xtables: lightweight process control
 group matching

On 10/21/2013 05:09 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 10/19/2013 08:16 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 10/19/2013 01:21 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> I am coming to this late.  But two concrete suggestions.
>>>
>>> 1) process groups and sessions don't change as frequently as pids.
>>>
>>> 2) It is possible to put a set of processes in their own network
>>>     namespace and pipe just the packets you want those processes to
>>>     use into that network namespace.  Using an ingress queueing filter
>>>     makes that process very efficient even if you have to filter by port.
>>
>> Actually in our case we're filtering outgoing traffic, based on which
>> local socket that originated from; so you wouldn't need all of that
>> construct. Also, you wouldn't even need to have an a-prio knowledge of
>> the application internals regarding their use of particular use of ports
>> or protocols. I don't think that such a setup will have the same
>> efficiency, ease of use, and power to distinguish the application the
>> traffic came from in such a lightweight, protocol independent and easy way.
>
> Sorry for beeing late as well (and also stupid question)
>
> Couldn't you use something from the LSM? I mean you allow the
> application to create the socket etc and then block later
> the traffic originated from that socket. Wouldn't it make
> more sense to block early?

I gave one simple example for blocking in the commit message,
that's true, but it is not limited to that, meaning we can have
much different scenarios/policies that netfilter allows us than
just blocking, e.g. fine grained settings where applications are
allowed to connect/send traffic to, application traffic marking/
conntracking, application-specific packet mangling, and so on,
just think of the whole netfilter universe.
--
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