From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: auditing kdbus service names Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: <2836805.Af3VO2DWPn@x2> References: <3754565.WlII3JJvve@sifl> <18456537.MDqL7RWdSn@x2> <1988863.rx1nHfWkfd@sifl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1988863.rx1nHfWkfd@sifl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Paul Moore Cc: Paul Osmialowski , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:48:10 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 05:38:14 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 08:40:34 AM Paul Moore wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I'm currently working on a set of LSM hooks for the new kdbus IPC > > > mechanism > > > and one of the things that I believe we will need to add is a new audit > > > field for the kdbus service name (very similar to the old fashioned dbus > > > service name). I was thinking "kdbus_svc" for the field name, any > > > objections? > > > > What was used on the old dbus events? > > The very generic "service" field name, see the "acquire_svc" example in the > URL below. I believe there is some value in picking a new field name since > 1) the field name is too generic in my opinion and 2) kdbus != dbus. In my book, they are the same. They are programs providing services on the bus. One thing I noticed in the dbus events is that there are a number of user controlled fields that are not escaped. Call it kdbus_svc if you want, but log it untrusted. Thanks, -Steve