Re: [PATCH v7 00/16] EVM

[Mimi Zohar]

On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 10:34 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 18:31 -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that you are assuming that a large chunk of filesystem
> > code is capable of properly and securely handling untrusted and
> > malicious
> > content.  Historically filesystem drivers are NOT capable of handling
> > such things, as evidenced by the large number of bugs that tools such
> > as
> > fsfuzzer tend to trigger.  If you want to use IMA as-designed then you
> > need to perform a relatively extensive audit of filesystem and fsck
> > code.
> > 
> > Furthermore, even when the filesystem does not have any security
> > issues
> > itself, you are assuming that intentionally malicious data-aliasing
> > between "trusted" and "untrusted" files can have no potential security
> > implications.  You should look at the prevalence of simple stupid
> > "/tmp"
> > symlink attacks for more counter-examples there.
> > 
> > In addition, IMA relies on the underlying attribute and data caching
> > properties of the VFS, which won't hold true for intentionally
> > malicious
> > corrupted filesystems.  It effectively assumes that writing data or
> > metadata for one file will not invalidate the cached data or metadata
> > for
> > another which is blatantly false when filesystem extents overlap each
> > other.
> > 
> > Overall, the IMA architecture assumes that if it loads and validates
> > the
> > file data or metadata that it cannot be changed except through a
> > kernel
> > access to that particular inode.  For a corrupted filesystem that is
> > absolutely untrue.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Kyle Moffett
> 
> You've brought up a number of interesting scenarios, which I appreciate.
> I will definitely take a closer look at fsfuzzer. It might be a good
> starting point for an EVM/IMA-appraisal LTP testsuite. The bottom line,
> as I said previously, is that EVM/IMA-appraisal doesn't need to prevent
> these things from occurring.  It just needs to be able to detect them.
> Caching the integrity verification results is a performance issue, be it
> an important one.
> 
> Currently the integrity verification results are reset when the file
> data or metadata changes and removed on __fput().  Based on your
> scenarios, I am looking to see if there might be additional situations
> where the verification results need to be reset.

I forgot to mention that the IMA-appraisal-directory extension,
discussed in the Integrity whitepaper, will also address some of the
concerns you raised.

thanks,

Mimi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/