From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] -ow features
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:00:53 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110729090053.GA7274@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110723162703.GA11631@openwall.com>
Solar,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 20:27 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> Can you please post a summary on the status of -ow patch features as it
> relates to mainline acceptance of their equivalents?
Sorry for the delay, I didn't somehow noticed this email.
HARDEN_STACK*
The code similar to -ow patch is ready, but it doesn't handle DSO cases
of stack usage. I've described the problem here:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/07/18/8
HARDEN_VM86
The code similar to -ow patch is ready, but I don't know how it should
be implemented relative to LSM/seccomp/etc. It looks like a small
feature, which is not consistent with current upstream security
architecture. I've described the problem here:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/06/19/2
Without the major change of the configuration mechanism it's impossible
to get it applied.
HARDEN_PAGE0
It is a part of Linux for many years. Distros may setup their own
mmap_min_addr limit and the default is 64K. So, I don't see what can be
improved here.
HARDEN_LINK
HARDEN_FIFO
These are implemented in YAMA LSM. Kees Cook's last attempt (AFAIK) is:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=130023775422255&w=2
James Morris' reaction:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=130032319219333&w=2
So, the issue is that LSM guys say that LSM is the place where only
enhanced access control schemes may be located, but VFS folks
say that all similar non-POSIX restrictions should go into LSM as a
configurable security feature (extern relative to VFS). This
inconsistency is really nasty :(
HARDEN_PROC
The patch as in -ow received negative response from Andrew Morton as too
limited:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/06/21/3
I'm working on it. The demonstration is:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/07/26/5
HARDEN_NLIMIT_NPROC
The discussion:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/06/12/9
The latest patch:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/07/29/3
(It has already got a Reviewed-by from James, which is very good.)
HARDEN_SHM
The patch:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/06/22/4
It was applied first to -mm tree, now it is merged into Linus' linux-2.6
tree (it will be part of Linux 3.1).
Special handling of fd 0,1,2 (Linux 2.0/2.2) for set*id
It is handled in glibc now by opening /dev/{null,full}, however, I see
(minor) drawbacks:
1) It's possible to have a chroot without polluted /dev/, so setuid
inside of chroot might fail to reopen fds.
2) It's not handled in other libc implementations.
Other than that, it already works.
Privileged IP aliases (Linux 2.0)
I think it was fully obsoleted with network namespaces.
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-29 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-23 16:27 [kernel-hardening] -ow features Solar Designer
2011-07-29 9:00 ` Vasiliy Kulikov [this message]
2011-07-29 17:30 ` Solar Designer
2011-07-29 18:00 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-29 18:06 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-29 22:42 ` Solar Designer
2011-07-30 18:20 ` [kernel-hardening] BINFMT_ELF_AOUT (was: -ow features) Vasiliy Kulikov
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=20110729090053.GA7274@albatros \
--to=segoon@openwall.com \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox