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/exploit.pl 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..

| 2 comments.

 

Comments On This Entry

[gravitar] Vincent Bernat

Submitted at 21:15:15 on 25 june 2017

Hey!

Wouldn't your security module easily be circumvented if a user just execute anything through the dynamic linker? /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 /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..

 

Add A Comment

Name:
Email:
Website:
Your Comment

Your submission will be ignored if the name, email, or comment field is left blank.

Your email address will never be displayed, but your homepage will be.

Recent Posts

Recent Tags