lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] SMACK netfilter smacklabel socket match
Casey Schaufler wrote:
> etienne wrote:
>> ...
>>> Etienne, thank you very much for the work you've done so far. Paul,
>>> thank you for your recommendations.
>>>
>> well, I'll try to explain my use case for SMACK, could you please tell me if this makes sense and if it is doable and sane with SMACK :
>>
>> I have single-user computer that, for simplicity sake, do only web browsing with firefox;
>> the attack vector i'm concerned with is malicious web pages, that could execute malicious code on my computer or worse erase some of my data;
>>
>> so i express the following security policy in a tool-agnostic way :
>> 1. firefox can access internet
>>
>
> In Smack terms then you want the process label of your browser
> process to have access to hosts on the internet in general. The
> easy way to do this is for it to run with the ambient label
> (cat /smack/ambient to see it) which will be the floor label "_"
> unless you change it. Note that your browser will need to talk
> to the X11 server as well, so processes with the label of the
> browser will need write access to processes with the label of the
> X11 server, and visa versa.

OK
>
>> 2. firefox can read/write it's configuration directory in my $HOME
>>
[snip]
>
> Do you need to use /tmp, or does firefox respect $TMPDIR?
> You can set the label of /tmp to the star "*" label if worse
> comes to worst.
>
i don't really know now, i label /tmp/ /var/tmp with *


>> pretty simple. So I expect the 'tool' to express this policy in very few line; (i had a look at selinux/refpolicy, and I'm ashamed I was too lazy to test/understand further).
>
> Don't be ashamed. I wrote Smack because I was too lazy to figure
> out SELinux policy.
>
:-)

>
> I have a newsmack program, but all that it does is what your "hack"
> does.
>
OK then. If it's the only way

>> Third issue : there seems to be no way to log/audit access violations, have you plans to implement that?
>>
>
> Hmm. Audit should be working.
>
I see some "audit" hook in the code, but i don't see a way to log _specific_ smack information ie
"smack_subject smack_object smack_access drop" (+of course process name, pid, path, and any relevant info)

like selinux would do in 'avc_audit'


regards
Etienne


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-20 19:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans