Linux security modules, round two.

Sunday, 25 June 2017

So recently I wrote a Linux Security Module (LSM) which would deny execution of commands, unless an extended attribute existed upon the filesystem belonging to the executables.

The whitelist-LSM worked well, but it soon became apparent that it was a little pointless. Most security changes are pointless unless you define what you're defending against - your "threat model".

In my case it was written largely as a learning experience, but also because I figured it seemed like it could be useful. However it wasn't actually as useful because you soon realize that you have to whitelist too much:

  • The redis-server binary must be executable, to the redis-user, otherwise it won't run.
  • /usr/bin/git must be executable to the git user.

In short there comes a point where user alice must run executable blah. If alice can run it, then so can mallory. At which point you realize the exercise is not so useful.

Taking a step back I realized that what I wanted to to prevent was the execution of unknown/unexpected, and malicious binaries How do you identify known-good binaries? Well hashes & checksums are good. So for my second attempt I figured I'd not look for a mere "flag" on a binary, instead look for a valid hash.

Now my second LSM is invoked for every binary that is executed by a user:

  • When a binary is executed the sha1 hash is calculated of the files contents.
  • If that matches the value stored in an extended attribute the execution is permitted.
    • If the extended-attribute is missing, or the checksum doesn't match, then the execution is denied.

In practice this is the same behaviour as the previous LSM - a binary is either executable, because there is a good hash, or it is not, because it is missing or bogus. If somebody deploys a binary rootkit this will definitely stop it from executing, but of course there is a huge hole - scripting-languages:

  • If /usr/bin/perl is whitelisted then /usr/bin/perl /tmp/ will succeed.
  • If /usr/bin/python is whitelisted then the same applies.

Despite that the project was worthwhile, I can clearly describe what it is designed to achieve ("Deny the execution of unknown binaries", and "Deny binaries that have been modified"), and I learned how to hash a file from kernel-space - which was surprisingly simple.

(Yes I know about IMA and EVM - this was a simple project for learning purposes. Public-key signatures will be something I'll look at next/soon/later. :)

Perhaps the only other thing to explore is the complexity in allowing/denying actions based on the user - in a human-readable fashion, not via UIDs. So www-data can execute some programs, alice can run a different set of binaries, and git can only run /usr/bin/git.

Of course down that path lies apparmour, selinux, and madness..



Comments On This Entry

[gravitar] Vincent Bernat

Submitted at 21:15:15 on 25 june 2017


Wouldn't your security module easily be circumvented if a user just execute anything through the dynamic linker? /lib64/ /bin/ls

[author] Steve Kemp

Submitted at 08:04:00 on 26 june 2017

I'd probably deny execution of the dynamic-loader, to counter that..


Comments are closed on posts which are more than ten days old.

Recent Posts

Recent Tags