From: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@gmail.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/2] procfs: restore 0400 permissions on /proc/*/{syscall,stack,personality}
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:53:35 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <524E118F.9080503@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLSXO_MzLtEn_9gdiWmEru+=o1ZnZ8z-m=KZy37Ry4NDQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 04/10/13 10:41, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> BTW, this just came to my attention:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138049414321387&w=2
>
> Same problem, just for /proc/kallsyms. This would benefit from the
> open vs read cred check as well, I think.
I was actually just about to put together a repost of this. Sorry I
missed you off the original Cc list, get_maintainer didn't list you.
I wanted to at least change the comment mentioning "badly written"
setuid binaries. That isn't really true, as George Spelvin pointed out,
even a setuid binary which opens the file with dropped priviledges, but
reads it after re-elevating privileges will be susceptible to this.
Setuid apps could be more precautious by doing the open + read into
memory of user files with the privileges dropped, so that once
privileges are re-elevated only the in-memory copy is used.
I still think in-kernel fixing is a good idea too though, since it
hardens against user-space setuid apps that don't do this. This was just
the simplest approach to fixing the problem that I could think of. I'm
open to suggestions for a better solution.
~Ryan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@gmail.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] procfs: restore 0400 permissions on /proc/*/{syscall,stack,personality}
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:53:35 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <524E118F.9080503@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLSXO_MzLtEn_9gdiWmEru+=o1ZnZ8z-m=KZy37Ry4NDQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 04/10/13 10:41, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> BTW, this just came to my attention:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138049414321387&w=2
>
> Same problem, just for /proc/kallsyms. This would benefit from the
> open vs read cred check as well, I think.
I was actually just about to put together a repost of this. Sorry I
missed you off the original Cc list, get_maintainer didn't list you.
I wanted to at least change the comment mentioning "badly written"
setuid binaries. That isn't really true, as George Spelvin pointed out,
even a setuid binary which opens the file with dropped priviledges, but
reads it after re-elevating privileges will be susceptible to this.
Setuid apps could be more precautious by doing the open + read into
memory of user files with the privileges dropped, so that once
privileges are re-elevated only the in-memory copy is used.
I still think in-kernel fixing is a good idea too though, since it
hardens against user-space setuid apps that don't do this. This was just
the simplest approach to fixing the problem that I could think of. I'm
open to suggestions for a better solution.
~Ryan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-04 0:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-26 16:23 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 1/2] procfs: restore 0400 permissions on /proc/*/{syscall,stack,personality} Djalal Harouni
2013-08-26 16:23 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-08-26 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 2/2] procfs: restore 0400 permissions on /proc/*/pagemap Djalal Harouni
2013-08-26 16:24 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-08-26 16:50 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-26 16:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-26 16:49 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 1/2] procfs: restore 0400 permissions on /proc/*/{syscall,stack,personality} Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-26 16:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-26 17:20 ` [kernel-hardening] " Al Viro
2013-08-26 17:20 ` Al Viro
2013-08-27 17:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-08-27 17:24 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-08-28 20:11 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-08-28 20:11 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-08-28 20:49 ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2013-08-28 20:49 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-28 21:11 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-08-28 21:11 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-08-29 0:26 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-29 0:26 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-29 0:30 ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2013-08-29 0:30 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-29 1:08 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-29 1:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-29 3:33 ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2013-08-29 3:33 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-29 7:42 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-29 7:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-29 9:11 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-08-29 9:11 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-08-29 22:14 ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2013-08-29 22:14 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-31 20:26 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-08-31 20:26 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-09-01 1:44 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-09-01 1:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-09-01 15:04 ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2013-09-01 15:04 ` Kees Cook
2013-09-12 1:23 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-09-12 1:23 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 0:41 ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2013-10-04 0:41 ` Kees Cook
2013-10-04 0:53 ` Ryan Mallon [this message]
2013-10-04 0:53 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-08-26 20:34 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-08-26 20:34 ` Djalal Harouni
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=524E118F.9080503@gmail.com \
--to=rmallon@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=segoon@openwall.com \
--cc=solar@openwall.com \
--cc=tixxdz@opendz.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.