proof selinux

proof selinux

[Raul da Silva {Sp4wn}]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 356 bytes --]

hi guys,

I know that we have a lot of ways to prove how effective is SELinux as cgi,
perl, shell scripts and I know that is effective but I'd like to know if
someone already tested some kind of exploit of buffer overflow attack as
demo to show how effective could be SELinux.
Any information I really appreciate

Thanks



Raul Leite
sp4wn.root@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 463 bytes --]

Re: proof selinux

[Patrick K., ITF]

Hi Raul,

I'm not sure if we are on the same page about SELinux.

SELinux is not there to prevent from buffer overflow or such exploits,

If you run a process in some kind of Role or Context, you confine it to 
the limitations you defined in that context (using SELinux Policies),

How effective SELinux would be, depends on your policies actually.

The effectiveness of SELinux has nothing to do with exploits, unless of 
course you meant attacking SELinux code or kernel LSM or Kernel itself.


Testing SELinux is easy, simply assign whatever role or policy you want 
to a process and user or group,  the ultimate exploit of a process gives 
total control of that role or policy to that user. So the attackers 
become as privileged as the role or user or context of the policy.


Sincerely,

Patrick K.

On 8/28/2012 10:50 PM, Raul da Silva {Sp4wn} wrote:
> hi guys,
>
> I know that we have a lot of ways to prove how effective is SELinux as
> cgi, perl, shell scripts and I know that is effective but I'd like to
> know if someone already tested some kind of exploit of buffer overflow
> attack as demo to show how effective could be SELinux.
> Any information I really appreciate
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Raul Leite
> sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com>
>
>

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: proof selinux

[Patrick K., ITF]

Bill,

The demonstration for SEAndroid you referred to is not to prevent the 
overflow, SELinux is not a tool such as StackGuard or ProPolice;

Such prevention is in gaining access and elevation of privileges, 
SELinux is there to compartmentalize things if correctly used, So 
technically it is not for preventing from buffer overflow or even 
preventing exploits, it is to confine, isolate, restrict and limit the 
damage (in GingerBreak case preventing Elevation of access -Root access-)

I believe you referred to this page:

http://selinuxproject.org/~jmorris/lss2011_slides/caseforseandroid.pdf

Best Regards,

Patrick K.

On 8/29/2012 12:10 AM, William Roberts wrote:
> As far as demo at preventing attacks based on overflow stephen smalley
> does a nice job showing how SEAndroid prevented ginger break. Look at
> the SEAndroid web page(Google it)
>
> On Aug 28, 2012 8:45 PM, "Patrick K., ITF" <cto@itechfrontiers.com
> <mailto:cto@itechfrontiers.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Raul,
>
>     I'm not sure if we are on the same page about SELinux.
>
>     SELinux is not there to prevent from buffer overflow or such exploits,
>
>     If you run a process in some kind of Role or Context, you confine it
>     to the limitations you defined in that context (using SELinux Policies),
>
>     How effective SELinux would be, depends on your policies actually.
>
>     The effectiveness of SELinux has nothing to do with exploits, unless
>     of course you meant attacking SELinux code or kernel LSM or Kernel
>     itself.
>
>
>     Testing SELinux is easy, simply assign whatever role or policy you
>     want to a process and user or group,  the ultimate exploit of a
>     process gives total control of that role or policy to that user. So
>     the attackers become as privileged as the role or user or context of
>     the policy.
>
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     Patrick K.
>
>     On 8/28/2012 10:50 PM, Raul da Silva {Sp4wn} wrote:
>
>         hi guys,
>
>         I know that we have a lot of ways to prove how effective is
>         SELinux as
>         cgi, perl, shell scripts and I know that is effective but I'd
>         like to
>         know if someone already tested some kind of exploit of buffer
>         overflow
>         attack as demo to show how effective could be SELinux.
>         Any information I really appreciate
>
>         Thanks
>
>
>
>         Raul Leite
>         sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com>
>         <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com>>
>
>
>
>     --
>     This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
>     If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to
>     majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov <mailto:majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov> with
>     the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
>

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: proof selinux

[William Roberts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3255 bytes --]

I never said it stops an overflow from occurring, it merely mitigates an
attack that was accomplished through an overflow....or similar memory
corruption error.
On Aug 28, 2012 9:28 PM, "Patrick K., ITF" <cto@itechfrontiers.com> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> The demonstration for SEAndroid you referred to is not to prevent the
> overflow, SELinux is not a tool such as StackGuard or ProPolice;
>
> Such prevention is in gaining access and elevation of privileges, SELinux
> is there to compartmentalize things if correctly used, So technically it is
> not for preventing from buffer overflow or even preventing exploits, it is
> to confine, isolate, restrict and limit the damage (in GingerBreak case
> preventing Elevation of access -Root access-)
>
> I believe you referred to this page:
>
> http://selinuxproject.org/~**jmorris/lss2011_slides/**caseforseandroid.pdf<http://selinuxproject.org/~jmorris/lss2011_slides/caseforseandroid.pdf>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Patrick K.
>
> On 8/29/2012 12:10 AM, William Roberts wrote:
>
>> As far as demo at preventing attacks based on overflow stephen smalley
>> does a nice job showing how SEAndroid prevented ginger break. Look at
>> the SEAndroid web page(Google it)
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2012 8:45 PM, "Patrick K., ITF" <cto@itechfrontiers.com
>> <mailto:cto@itechfrontiers.com**>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Raul,
>>
>>     I'm not sure if we are on the same page about SELinux.
>>
>>     SELinux is not there to prevent from buffer overflow or such exploits,
>>
>>     If you run a process in some kind of Role or Context, you confine it
>>     to the limitations you defined in that context (using SELinux
>> Policies),
>>
>>     How effective SELinux would be, depends on your policies actually.
>>
>>     The effectiveness of SELinux has nothing to do with exploits, unless
>>     of course you meant attacking SELinux code or kernel LSM or Kernel
>>     itself.
>>
>>
>>     Testing SELinux is easy, simply assign whatever role or policy you
>>     want to a process and user or group,  the ultimate exploit of a
>>     process gives total control of that role or policy to that user. So
>>     the attackers become as privileged as the role or user or context of
>>     the policy.
>>
>>
>>     Sincerely,
>>
>>     Patrick K.
>>
>>     On 8/28/2012 10:50 PM, Raul da Silva {Sp4wn} wrote:
>>
>>         hi guys,
>>
>>         I know that we have a lot of ways to prove how effective is
>>         SELinux as
>>         cgi, perl, shell scripts and I know that is effective but I'd
>>         like to
>>         know if someone already tested some kind of exploit of buffer
>>         overflow
>>         attack as demo to show how effective could be SELinux.
>>         Any information I really appreciate
>>
>>         Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>         Raul Leite
>>         sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com>
>>         <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing
>> list.
>>     If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to
>>     majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov <mailto:majordomo@tycho.nsa.**gov<majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov>>
>> with
>>     the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4355 bytes --]

Re: proof selinux

[Russell Coker]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, "Raul da Silva {Sp4wn}" <sp4wn.root@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that we have a lot of ways to prove how effective is SELinux as cgi,
> perl, shell scripts and I know that is effective but I'd like to know if
> someone already tested some kind of exploit of buffer overflow attack as
> demo to show how effective could be SELinux.
> Any information I really appreciate

A simple test of this would be to run a program like telnetd as httpd_t (or 
some other domain that takes remote connections) and configure it to launch a 
shell with no password.

http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/play.html

Also I have a Play Machine online right now to demonstrate how the root 
account can be locked down.

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: proof selinux

[David Quigley]

On 08/29/2012 03:28, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, "Raul da Silva {Sp4wn}" <sp4wn.root@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> I know that we have a lot of ways to prove how effective is SELinux 
>> as cgi,
>> perl, shell scripts and I know that is effective but I'd like to 
>> know if
>> someone already tested some kind of exploit of buffer overflow 
>> attack as
>> demo to show how effective could be SELinux.
>> Any information I really appreciate
>
> A simple test of this would be to run a program like telnetd as 
> httpd_t (or
> some other domain that takes remote connections) and configure it to
> launch a
> shell with no password.
>
> http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/play.html
>
> Also I have a Play Machine online right now to demonstrate how the 
> root
> account can be locked down.


An easier example is what I use for my SELinux talks. Custom file 
transfer daemon (gets only) which has a very critical flaw in it. It 
doesn't sanitize the path that is requested for the binary. Because of 
this you can use .. repeatedly to get where you need to in the 
filesystem hierarchy and pull any file you want. Once you install the 
SELinux policy it will only allow you to pull files with the correct 
content type.

https://github.com/dpquigl/ftransferd

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: proof selinux

[Daniel J Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/29/2012 01:57 AM, William Roberts wrote:
> I never said it stops an overflow from occurring, it merely mitigates an
> attack that was accomplished through an overflow....or similar memory
> corruption error.
> 
> On Aug 28, 2012 9:28 PM, "Patrick K., ITF" <cto@itechfrontiers.com 
> <mailto:cto@itechfrontiers.com>> wrote:
> 
> Bill,
> 
> The demonstration for SEAndroid you referred to is not to prevent the 
> overflow, SELinux is not a tool such as StackGuard or ProPolice;
> 
> Such prevention is in gaining access and elevation of privileges, SELinux
> is there to compartmentalize things if correctly used, So technically it is
> not for preventing from buffer overflow or even preventing exploits, it is
> to confine, isolate, restrict and limit the damage (in GingerBreak case 
> preventing Elevation of access -Root access-)
> 
> I believe you referred to this page:
> 
> http://selinuxproject.org/~__jmorris/lss2011_slides/__caseforseandroid.pdf 
> <http://selinuxproject.org/~jmorris/lss2011_slides/caseforseandroid.pdf>
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Patrick K.
> 
> On 8/29/2012 12:10 AM, William Roberts wrote:
> 
> As far as demo at preventing attacks based on overflow stephen smalley does
> a nice job showing how SEAndroid prevented ginger break. Look at the
> SEAndroid web page(Google it)
> 
> On Aug 28, 2012 8:45 PM, "Patrick K., ITF" <cto@itechfrontiers.com 
> <mailto:cto@itechfrontiers.com> <mailto:cto@itechfrontiers.com
> <mailto:cto@itechfrontiers.com>__>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Raul,
> 
> I'm not sure if we are on the same page about SELinux.
> 
> SELinux is not there to prevent from buffer overflow or such exploits,
> 
> If you run a process in some kind of Role or Context, you confine it to the
> limitations you defined in that context (using SELinux Policies),
> 
> How effective SELinux would be, depends on your policies actually.
> 
> The effectiveness of SELinux has nothing to do with exploits, unless of
> course you meant attacking SELinux code or kernel LSM or Kernel itself.
> 
> 
> Testing SELinux is easy, simply assign whatever role or policy you want to
> a process and user or group,  the ultimate exploit of a process gives total
> control of that role or policy to that user. So the attackers become as
> privileged as the role or user or context of the policy.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Patrick K.
> 
> On 8/28/2012 10:50 PM, Raul da Silva {Sp4wn} wrote:
> 
> hi guys,
> 
> I know that we have a lot of ways to prove how effective is SELinux as cgi,
> perl, shell scripts and I know that is effective but I'd like to know if
> someone already tested some kind of exploit of buffer overflow attack as
> demo to show how effective could be SELinux. Any information I really
> appreciate
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Raul Leite sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com> 
> <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com>> 
> <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com> 
> <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com <mailto:sp4wn.root@gmail.com>>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing
> list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to 
> majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov <mailto:majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov> 
> <mailto:majordomo@tycho.nsa.__gov <mailto:majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov>> with 
> the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
> 


I like this demo.

http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/44090.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEUEARECAAYFAlBGRmkACgkQrlYvE4MpobOA1gCfdHK7j+4Bo3yGqpmmFhuc3w3W
l4YAmLh8nT7VZJ47VICWPqwqJjuXSPg=
=293q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.