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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:15:36 +0000
From:	"Ni, Xun" <xun.ni@...el.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>,
	"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xtables: lightweight process control
 group matching

Hello, Daniel:
   can all your examples block early before doing network operations? What's the whole netfilter universe? Can you give us more clear examples?

Thanks
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 cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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