Re: [RFC PATCH v19 0/5] Script execution control (was O_MAYEXEC)

[Mickaël Salaün]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 04:35:38PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Mickaël,
> 
> On Thu, 2024-07-04 at 21:01 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The ultimate goal of this patch series is to be able to ensure that
> > direct file execution (e.g. ./script.sh) and indirect file execution
> > (e.g. sh script.sh) lead to the same result, especially from a security
> > point of view.
> > 
> > Overview
> > --------
> > 
> > This patch series is a new approach of the initial O_MAYEXEC feature,
> > and a revamp of the previous patch series.  Taking into account the last
> > reviews [1], we now stick to the kernel semantic for file executability.
> > One major change is the clear split between access check and policy
> > management.
> > 
> > The first patch brings the AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2).  The goal is to
> > enable user space to check if a file could be executed (by the kernel).
> > Unlike stat(2) that only checks file permissions, execveat2(2) +
> > AT_CHECK take into account the full context, including mount points
> > (noexec), caller's limits, and all potential LSM extra checks (e.g.
> > argv, envp, credentials).
> > 
> > The second patch brings two new securebits used to set or get a security
> > policy for a set of processes.  For this to be meaningful, all
> > executable code needs to be trusted.  In practice, this means that
> > (malicious) users can be restricted to only run scripts provided (and
> > trusted) by the system.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wjPGNLyzeBMWdQu+kUdQLHQugznwY7CvWjmvNW47D5sog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > Script execution
> > ----------------
> > 
> > One important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of this patch
> > series is to get the same security restrictions with these commands:
> > * ./script.py
> > * python script.py
> > * python < script.py
> > * python -m script.pyT
> 
> This is really needed, but is it the "only" purpose of this patch set or can it
> be used to also monitor files the script opens (for read) with the intention of
> executing.

This feature can indeed also be used to monitor files requested by
scripts to be executed e.g. using
https://docs.python.org/3/library/io.html#io.open_code

IMA/EVM can include this check in its logs.

> 
> > 
> > However, on secure systems, we should be able to forbid these commands
> > because there is no way to reliably identify the origin of the script:
> > * xargs -a script.py -d '\r' -- python -c
> > * cat script.py | python
> > * python
> > 
> > Background
> > ----------
> > 
> > Compared to the previous patch series, there is no more dedicated
> > syscall nor sysctl configuration.  This new patch series only add new
> > flags: one for execveat(2) and four for prctl(2).
> > 
> > This kind of script interpreter restriction may already be used in
> > hardened systems, which may need to fork interpreters and install
> > different versions of the binaries.  This mechanism should enable to
> > avoid the use of duplicate binaries (and potential forked source code)
> > for secure interpreters (e.g. secure Python [2]) by making it possible
> > to dynamically enforce restrictions or not.
> > 
> > The ability to control script execution is also required to close a
> > major IMA measurement/appraisal interpreter integrity [3].
> 
> Definitely.  But it isn't limited to controlling script execution, but also
> measuring the script.  Will it be possible to measure and appraise the indirect
> script calls with this patch set?

Yes. You should only need to implement security_bprm_creds_for_exec()
for IMA/EVM.

BTW, I noticed that IMA only uses the security_bprm_check() hook (which
can be called several times for one execve), but
security_bprm_creds_for_exec() might be more appropriate.

> 
> Mimi
> 
> > This new execveat + AT_CHECK should not be confused with the O_EXEC flag
> > (for open) which is intended for execute-only, which obviously doesn't
> > work for scripts.
> > 
> > I gave a talk about controlling script execution where I explain the
> > previous approaches [4].  The design of the WIP RFC I talked about
> > changed quite a bit since then.
> > 
> > [2] https://github.com/zooba/spython
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211014130125.6991-1-zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > [4] https://lssna2023.sched.com/event/1K7bO
> > 
> 
>