|
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+APTTSKh_xvgpzV3wNYseQxafbKqQ3NyvUe50aGOOBGg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:48:55 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Cc: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with file->f_cred On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:40:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On 10/01/2013 01:26 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: >>> > /proc/<pid>/* entries varies at runtime, appropriate permission checks >>> > need to happen during each system call. >>> > >>> > Currently some of these sensitive entries are protected by performing >>> > the ptrace_may_access() check. However even with that the /proc file >>> > descriptors can be passed to a more privileged process >>> > (e.g. a suid-exec) which will pass the classic ptrace_may_access() >>> > check. In general the ->open() call will be issued by an unprivileged >>> > process while the ->read(),->write() calls by a more privileged one. >>> > >>> > Example of these files are: >>> > /proc/*/syscall, /proc/*/stack etc. >>> > >>> > And any open(/proc/self/*) then suid-exec to read()/write() /proc/self/* >>> > >>> > >>> > These files are protected during read() by the ptrace_may_access(), >>> > however the file descriptor can be passed to a suid-exec which can be >>> > used to read data and bypass ASLR. Of course this was discussed several >>> > times on LKML. >>> >>> Can you elaborate on what it is that you're fixing? That is, can you >>> give a concrete example of what process opens what file and passes the >>> fd to what process? >> Yes, the references were already given in this email: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/31/209 >> >> This has been discussed several times on lkml: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/28/544 >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/28/564 (check Kees's references) >> >> >>> I'm having trouble following your description. >> Process open a /proc file and pass the fd to a more privilaged process >> that will pass the ptrace_may_access() check, while the original process >> that opened that file should fail at the ptrace_may_access() > > So we're talking about two kinds of attacks, right? Correct. > Type 1: Unprivileged process does something like open("/proc/1/maps", > O_RDONLY) and then passes the resulting fd to something privileged. ... and then leaks contents back to unprivileged process. > Type 2: Unprivileged process does something like > open("/proc/self/maps", O_RDONLY) and then forks. The parent calls > execve on something privileged. ... and then parent snoops on file contents for the privileged child. (Type 2 is solved currently, IIUC. Type 1 could be reduced in scope by changing these file modes back to 0400.) > Can we really not get away with fixing type 1 by preventing these > files from being opened in the first place and type 2 by revoking all > of these fds when a privilege-changing exec happens? Type 1 can be done via exec as well. Instead of using a priv exec to read an arbitrary process, read it could read its own. I think revoking the fd would be great. Does that mechanism exist? -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.