lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [patch] Add basic sanity checks to the syscall execution patch
On 5 Sep 2008 at 13:42, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The other, more fundamental problem that nobody has mentioned so far is
> that the check returns -ENOSYS and thus makes rootkit attacks _more
> robust_ and hence more likely!
>
> The far better solution would be to insert uncertainty into the picture:
> some sort of low-frequency watchdog [runs once a second or so] that
> tries to hide itself from the general kernel scope as much as possible,
> perhaps as ELF-PIC code at some randomized location, triggered by some
> frequently used and opaque kernel facility that an attacker can not
> afford to block or fully filter, and which would just check integrity
> periodically and with little cost.

there's that adage about history being repeated by those not knowing it ;)
for details see the series based around bypassing Vista's PatchGuard at:

http://uninformed.org/?v=3
http://uninformed.org/?v=6
http://uninformed.org/?v=8

> A good benchmark for such a silent alarm facility would be whether an
> experienced kernel developer could reliably tell it via a kgdb session
> and full access to memory and system symbols that such a silent alarm is
> running on a box. If he cannot do it reliably then there's probably no
> good way for an attacker either.

i believe the above mentioned papers prove that it's not a good benchmark ;)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-05 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans