|
Message-ID: <d5b6cf123db60902d480129396d0a8fb@opensec.fr> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:04:08 +0100 From: HacKurx <hackurx@...il.com> To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Binary blobs Le 2015-11-09 23:20, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu a écrit : > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:59:31 +0100, HacKurx said: >> The binary blobs are a potential for undetectable or irreparable >> security flaws (Andrews Jeremy "Interview: Theo de Raadt", >> KernelTrap). >> >> What is your point of view? Linux-libre kernel is the only reliable >> basis? > > Closed source is by definition not easily examined for security issues > (though > once you get to monsters like LibreOffice or Firefox, even open source > code > is difficult to audit). > > The problem is that at the current time, not all software is easily > opened. For > example, the single biggest reason (among several) that NVidia has a > binary > blob driver is that (simplifying *drastically* here) when SGI's > graphics > division imploded, NVidia got all the engineers - but Microsoft snarfed > up a > bunch of patents connected to OpenGL. So NVidia had no realistic > choice but to > license the intellectual property from Microsoft. > > So out in the real world, you have to look at your threat model, and > decide > how paranoid you are. (Personally, I'd be more worried about the > open-sourced > Firefox code than I would the NVidia binary blob. The former has got a > *huge* > attack surface compared to the latter....) Yes indeed. But for your information you can use Firefox with MPROTECT and all hardened options for GCC. http://hardenedgentoo.blogspot.fr/2012/02/firefox-1001-mprotect-strikes-again.html Disable in firefox: methodjit, tracejit & ion. The performance remains very good :) Le 2015-11-10 00:33, Kees Cook a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:59:31 +0100, HacKurx said: >>> The binary blobs are a potential for undetectable or irreparable >>> security flaws (Andrews Jeremy "Interview: Theo de Raadt", >>> KernelTrap). >>> >>> What is your point of view? Linux-libre kernel is the only reliable >>> basis? >> >> Closed source is by definition not easily examined for security issues >> (though >> once you get to monsters like LibreOffice or Firefox, even open source >> code >> is difficult to audit). >> >> The problem is that at the current time, not all software is easily >> opened. For >> example, the single biggest reason (among several) that NVidia has a >> binary >> blob driver is that (simplifying *drastically* here) when SGI's >> graphics >> division imploded, NVidia got all the engineers - but Microsoft >> snarfed up a >> bunch of patents connected to OpenGL. So NVidia had no realistic >> choice but to >> license the intellectual property from Microsoft. >> >> So out in the real world, you have to look at your threat model, and >> decide >> how paranoid you are. (Personally, I'd be more worried about the >> open-sourced >> Firefox code than I would the NVidia binary blob. The former has got >> a *huge* >> attack surface compared to the latter....) > > I think the first step is making sure you know _what_ blobs you're > loading, and to have a known list of them. (There are efforts started > with signed firmware[1] validation or the loadpin[2] LSM -- though > neither yet deal with userspace loaded blobs like graphics drivers, > SSD firmware, etc). This would block having blobs be manipulated > maliciously before they're loaded. After that mechanism is in place, > then it'd be useful to reverse engineer them to find security flaws. > > -Kees > > [1] > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2015-August/002238.html > [2] > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=lsm/loadpin Okay, thanks for the clarifications -- Best regards,
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.