lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] security: tty: make TIOCSTI ioctl require CAP_SYS_ADMIN
From
Date
On 6/2/17 3:25 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Matt Brown <matt@nmatt.com> wrote:
>> On 6/2/17 2:18 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> Quoting Matt Brown (matt@nmatt.com):
>>>> On 6/2/17 12:57 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>>> I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. Let me offer a precise
>>>>> strawman design. I'm sure there are problems with it, it's just a starting
>>>>> point.
>>>>>
>>>>> system-wide whitelist (for now 'may_push_chars') is full by default.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So is may_push_chars just an alias for TIOCSTI? Or are there some
>>>> potential whitelist members that would map to multiple ioctls?
>>>
>>> <shrug> I'm seeing it as only TIOCSTI right now.
>>>
>>>>> By default, nothing changes - you can use those on your own tty, need
>>>>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN against init_user_ns otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Introduce a new CAP_TTY_PRIVILEGED.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with this.
>>>>
>>>>> When may_push_chars is removed from the whitelist, you lose the ability
>>>>> to use TIOCSTI on a tty - even your own - if you do not have CAP_TTY_PRIVILEGED
>>>>> against the tty's user_ns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you propose storing/updating the whitelist? sysctl?
>>>>
>>>> If it is a sysctl, would each whitelist member have a sysctl?
>>>> e.g.: kernel.ioctlwhitelist.may_push_chars = 1
>>>>
>>>> Overall, I'm fine with this idea.
>>>
>>> That sounds reasonable. Or a securityfs file - I guess not everyone
>>> has securityfs, but if it were to become part of YAMA then that would
>>> work.
>>>
>>
>> Yama doesn't depend on securityfs does it?
>>
>> What do other people think? Should this be an addition to YAMA or its
>> own thing?
>>
>> Alan Cox: what do you think of the above ioctl whitelisting scheme?
>
> It's easy to stack LSMs, so since Yama is ptrace-focused, perhaps make
> a separate one for TTY hardening?
>

Sounds good. I also like the idea of them being separate.

Matt Brown

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-05 00:14    [W:1.433 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site