From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org, segoon@openwall.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jmorris@namei.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, amwang@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, gregkh@suse.de, dhowells@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org, mhalcrow@google.com, dlaor@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH PLACEHOLDER 1/3] fs/exec: "always_unprivileged" patch Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:41:27 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4F138E57.6030007@schaufler-ca.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAObL_7F4hEvdyJLNhodOOETTv-Dur8gEadLkzESQWFC2C57t7w@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/2012 2:07 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Casey Schaufler<casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >> On 1/15/2012 12:59 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Casey Schaufler >>> <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/14/2012 12:22 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>>>> And yes, I really seriously do believe that is both safer and simpler >>>>> than some model that says "you can drop stuff", and then you have to >>>>> start making up rules for what "dropping" means. >>>>> >>>>> Does "dropping" mean allowing setuid(geteuid()) for example? That *is* >>>>> dropping the uid in a _POSIX_SAVED_IDS environment. And I'm saying >>>>> that no, we should not even allow that. It's simply all too "subtle". >>>> >>>> I am casting my two cents worth behind Linus. Dropping >>>> privilege can be every bit as dangerous as granting privilege >>>> in the real world of atrocious user land code. Especially in >>>> the case of security policy enforcing user land code. >>> Can you think of *any* plausible attack that is possible with my patch >>> (i.e. no_new_privs allows setuid, setresuid, and capset) that would be >>> prevented or even mitigated if I blocked those syscalls? I can't. >>> (The sendmail-style attack is impossible with no_new_privs.) >> >> I am notoriously bad at coming up with this sort of example. >> I will try, I may not hit the mark, but it should be close. >> >> The application is running with saved uid != euid when >> no-new-privs is set. It execs a new binary, which keeps >> the saved and effective uids. The program calls setreuid, >> which succeeds. It opens the saved userid's files. > If you don't trust that binary, then why are you execing it with saved > uid != euid in the first place? If I could trust the binary I wouldn't need your no_new_privs semantics in the first place. Do you have any idea how big the chrome browser binary is? You can't link it on a 32bit machine it uses so much address space. On top of that, most modern applications are compositions of scripts and interpreters built on top of multiple layers of middleware. Of course I don't trust the binary! > If you are setting no_new_privs, then > you are new code and should have at least some basic awareness of the > semantics. It's not the program setting no_new_privs that I'm worried about. It's the nth descendant of that program and its ancestors that are going to do screwy things. > The exact same "exploit" is possible if you have > CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE with either no_new_privs semantics -- if you have a > privilege and you run untrusted code, then you had better remove that > privilege somehow for the untrusted code. Yes, and my very own name is engraved on the security wall of shame for the classic sendmail capabilities exploit. Don't think for a minute that something won't get done just because its obviously inappropriate. > IOW, *drop privileges if you are a sandbox*. Otherwise you're screwed > with or without no_new_privs. > > > Another way of saying this is: no_new_privs is not a sandbox. It's > just a way to make it safe for sandboxes and other such weird things > processes can do to themselves safe across execve. If you want a > sandbox, use seccomp mode 2, which will require you to set > no_new_privs. > > > --Andy > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org, segoon@openwall.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jmorris@namei.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, amwang@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, gregkh@suse.de, dhowells@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org, mhalcrow@google.com, dlaor@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Casey Schaufler <casey@schauf Subject: Re: [PATCH PLACEHOLDER 1/3] fs/exec: "always_unprivileged" patch Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:41:27 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4F138E57.6030007@schaufler-ca.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAObL_7F4hEvdyJLNhodOOETTv-Dur8gEadLkzESQWFC2C57t7w@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/2012 2:07 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Casey Schaufler<casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >> On 1/15/2012 12:59 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Casey Schaufler >>> <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/14/2012 12:22 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>>>> And yes, I really seriously do believe that is both safer and simpler >>>>> than some model that says "you can drop stuff", and then you have to >>>>> start making up rules for what "dropping" means. >>>>> >>>>> Does "dropping" mean allowing setuid(geteuid()) for example? That *is* >>>>> dropping the uid in a _POSIX_SAVED_IDS environment. And I'm saying >>>>> that no, we should not even allow that. It's simply all too "subtle". >>>> >>>> I am casting my two cents worth behind Linus. Dropping >>>> privilege can be every bit as dangerous as granting privilege >>>> in the real world of atrocious user land code. Especially in >>>> the case of security policy enforcing user land code. >>> Can you think of *any* plausible attack that is possible with my patch >>> (i.e. no_new_privs allows setuid, setresuid, and capset) that would be >>> prevented or even mitigated if I blocked those syscalls? I can't. >>> (The sendmail-style attack is impossible with no_new_privs.) >> >> I am notoriously bad at coming up with this sort of example. >> I will try, I may not hit the mark, but it should be close. >> >> The application is running with saved uid != euid when >> no-new-privs is set. It execs a new binary, which keeps >> the saved and effective uids. The program calls setreuid, >> which succeeds. It opens the saved userid's files. > If you don't trust that binary, then why are you execing it with saved > uid != euid in the first place? If I could trust the binary I wouldn't need your no_new_privs semantics in the first place. Do you have any idea how big the chrome browser binary is? You can't link it on a 32bit machine it uses so much address space. On top of that, most modern applications are compositions of scripts and interpreters built on top of multiple layers of middleware. Of course I don't trust the binary! > If you are setting no_new_privs, then > you are new code and should have at least some basic awareness of the > semantics. It's not the program setting no_new_privs that I'm worried about. It's the nth descendant of that program and its ancestors that are going to do screwy things. > The exact same "exploit" is possible if you have > CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE with either no_new_privs semantics -- if you have a > privilege and you run untrusted code, then you had better remove that > privilege somehow for the untrusted code. Yes, and my very own name is engraved on the security wall of shame for the classic sendmail capabilities exploit. Don't think for a minute that something won't get done just because its obviously inappropriate. > IOW, *drop privileges if you are a sandbox*. Otherwise you're screwed > with or without no_new_privs. > > > Another way of saying this is: no_new_privs is not a sandbox. It's > just a way to make it safe for sandboxes and other such weird things > processes can do to themselves safe across execve. If you want a > sandbox, use seccomp mode 2, which will require you to set > no_new_privs. > > > --Andy > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-16 2:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-01-12 23:38 [PATCH PLACEHOLDER 1/3] fs/exec: "always_unprivileged" patch Will Drewry 2012-01-12 23:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF Will Drewry 2012-01-13 0:51 ` Randy Dunlap 2012-01-12 23:59 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-12 23:59 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-13 1:35 ` Randy Dunlap 2012-01-13 17:39 ` Eric Paris 2012-01-13 18:50 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-13 18:50 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-12 23:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] Documentation: prctl/seccomp_filter Will Drewry 2012-01-15 1:52 ` Randy Dunlap 2012-01-16 1:41 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-17 23:29 ` Eric Paris 2012-01-17 23:29 ` Eric Paris 2012-01-17 23:54 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-12 23:47 ` [PATCH PLACEHOLDER 1/3] fs/exec: "always_unprivileged" patch Linus Torvalds 2012-01-13 0:03 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-13 0:42 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-13 0:57 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-01-13 0:57 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-01-13 1:11 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-13 1:11 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-13 1:17 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-01-14 13:30 ` Jamie Lokier 2012-01-14 19:21 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-14 19:21 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-14 20:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2012-01-14 21:04 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-15 20:16 ` Casey Schaufler 2012-01-15 20:59 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-15 21:32 ` Casey Schaufler 2012-01-15 21:32 ` Casey Schaufler 2012-01-15 22:07 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-16 2:04 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-16 2:04 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-18 3:12 ` Eric W. Biederman 2012-01-18 3:12 ` Eric W. Biederman 2012-01-16 2:41 ` Casey Schaufler [this message] 2012-01-16 2:41 ` Casey Schaufler 2012-01-16 7:45 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-16 18:02 ` Casey Schaufler 2012-01-16 18:02 ` Casey Schaufler 2012-01-13 1:37 ` Will Drewry 2012-01-13 1:41 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-13 1:41 ` Andrew Lutomirski 2012-01-13 2:09 ` Kees Cook 2012-01-13 2:09 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=4F138E57.6030007@schaufler-ca.com \ --to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \ --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \ --cc=amwang@redhat.com \ --cc=avi@redhat.com \ --cc=borislav.petkov@amd.com \ --cc=corbet@lwn.net \ --cc=coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=daniel.lezcano@free.fr \ --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \ --cc=djm@mindrot.org \ --cc=dlaor@redhat.com \ --cc=eparis@redhat.com \ --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \ --cc=gregkh@suse.de \ --cc=jamie@shareable.org \ --cc=jmorris@namei.org \ --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=khilman@ti.com \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=luto@mit.edu \ --cc=mhalcrow@google.com \ --cc=mingo@elte.hu \ --cc=oleg@redhat.com \ --cc=olofj@chromium.org \ --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \ --cc=pmoore@redhat.com \ --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \ --cc=scarybeasts@gmail.com \ --cc=segoon@openwall.com \ --cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \ --cc=wad@chromium.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.