All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Corey Bryant <coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@google.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
	zohar@us.ibm.com, john.johansen@canonical.com
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Linux Security Workgroup
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:26:26 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5064A862.20708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)

At the Linux Security Summit we began discussing the Linux Security 
Workgroup and some of the efforts that we can focus on.

The charter of the workgroup is to provide on-going security
verification of Linux kernel subsystems in order to assist in securing 
the Linux Kernel and maintain trust and confidence in the security of 
the Linux ecosystem.

This may include, but is not limited to, topics such as tooling to 
assist in securing the Linux Kernel, verification and testing of 
critical subsystems for vulnerabilities, security improvements for build 
tools, and providing guidance for maintaining subsystem security.

For communication, we have permission to use the following mail list: 
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
The list can be subscribed to at: http://www.openwall.com/lists/#subscribe

If you would like to participate or know anyone else who would like to, 
please join the mailing list or feel free to pass the word on.

The bullets below are further details based on our discussion at the 
Linux Security Summit:

General Notes:
--------------
* The idea of the workgroup came from the Linux Foundation and Ted Tso 
after the kernel.org attack.

* Malicious code wasn't inserted into the kernel tree.  git hashing 
would have detected a mismatch in kernel code quickly.  Also the PGP web 
of trust and kernel signing was an important validation measure that's 
since been taken.

* Guidelines for subsystems could be created to provide guidance for 
best practices to consider when reviewing code (e.g. detecting common 
vulnerabilities, don't leave ssh private keys around, etc).

* Development and maintenance of automated tools would assist in 
securing the kernel on an ongoing basis.

* Maintainers should have more automated tooling available to enforce 
security checks on patches as they come in.

* Daily execution (perhaps on linux-next tree or as part of build 
system) of static analysis and emailing reports out to a list and CC'ing 
authors using git blame.  Red Hat's Coverity license allows results to 
be shared with the upstream project.

* Provide verification of critical kernel subsystems (Kernel build 
infrastructure, Networking, Network file systems, KVM, Cryptographic 
library).

* Fuzz testing could be used to find potential problems in the kernel's 
interface to userspace (syscall, ioctl, KVM paravirt calls).

* More stringent rules could be adopted such as patch signing.

* The security community should share and coordinate their efforts on 
the mail list so that overlap of work items does not occur.

Resource requirements:
----------------------
* We should narrow down the working group's scope and/or priorities 
before we narrow down the resources.

* Perhaps allocating people for a limited amount of time that rotates 
would be the most attainable resource possibility.


-- 
Regards,
Corey Bryant

             reply	other threads:[~2012-09-27 19:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-27 19:26 Corey Bryant [this message]
2012-10-02 16:23 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: Linux Security Workgroup Kees Cook
2012-10-02 16:44   ` Corey Bryant
2012-10-02 22:17     ` Kees Cook
2012-10-03  5:38       ` Julia Lawall
2012-10-03  5:45       ` Dan Carpenter
2012-10-03 21:59       ` Corey Bryant
2012-10-04  5:29         ` James Morris
2012-10-08 17:52       ` Corey Bryant
2012-10-08 20:00         ` Kees Cook
2012-10-08 20:59           ` Corey Bryant
2012-10-08 21:11         ` Paul Moore
2012-10-08 21:49           ` Kees Cook
2012-10-09 14:07           ` Corey Bryant

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5064A862.20708@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
    --cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
    --cc=tytso@google.com \
    --cc=zohar@us.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.