Brindle on Security

One of the biggest complaints people have about SELinux is the lack of documentation. Indeed we had a nice group discussion with some users at Linux Plumbers Conference who once again brought this to our attention.

The reason is simple. Most of us working on SELinux are developers. We don’t like writing documentation. We’d rather write blog entries explaining some aspect of SELinux instead of real documents. While this works when your primary audience are knowledgeable enough to find the blog entries, figure out how to apply the concepts to their problems and connect all the dots between here and there it isn’t useful for new users or users trying to solve a simple problem.

It is unfortunate, and some people over the years have helped us out, such as with the Fedora SELinux User Guide, but unfortunately we’ve missed some users, particularly new ones, and we haven’t aggregated these documents onto a distribution agnostic place with good organization.

With that in mind I volunteered to start the SELinux Documentation Project during LPC. Basically the goal is to make user-problem focused documentation available at the official SELinux project site. This will be a huge effort, writing original documentation, organizing it into consumable chunks and mining years of mail list posts, blog entries and other resources to deliver documents to users.

I’ve already started putting up several pieces. One of the things I want to really focus on are SELinux ‘recipes’, short, to-the-point blurbs telling users how to do the things they want to do, like allowing apache to connect to their database server, or  how to easily add a rule to their policy.

We also need a place where potential developers can go to easily get resources on developing SELinux so that our community can expand. Further a place where vendors can go to learn about what SELinux can do for their solution and how to get started using SELinux is a must.

All that said, I can’t do this alone. I’ve started several pages and will continue doing so but if you are one of those strange souls with a propensity to document things, or you have recently gone through the pains of finding info in obscure places that you couldn’t find elsewhere we could really use your help in expanding, organizing and centralizing documentation on selinuxproject.org. If you want to help you can email me at method at manicmethod.com or James Morris at jmorris at namei.org to get an account and start contributing.

Wow, I just noticed it’s been a year since I’ve blogged, that is not good.

That doesn’t mean nothing has been going on though, we’ve been quite busy around here.

I’d like to talk about a couple projects we are working on. The first is better integration of SELinux policies into RPM. We’ve posted a patch set to the rpm-maint mailing list and are awaiting feedback. To try out the patches yourself you can read the instructions on the project page at selinuxproject.org.

The current patch set basically makes RPM actually do stuff with the %policy tag, which it never did before. We’ve also changed the %policy tag to be more flexible in allowing more information about the policies to be handled by RPM, such as policy modules that are being obsoleted. You can read the full description of the patches on the mail list postings.

This is only the first step in a long term project we have to make RPM more robust and reduce the amount of trust necessary in the package manager. We have several ideas of how to proceed but we haven’t proven that they’ll work yet (or that the RPM community will be interested in them). Suffice to say we basically want to break RPM into smaller pieces, each of which has a dedicated job to do, which can be confined by SELinux. Each step would require less trust that the packages aren’t malicious and that the SELinux policy is correct and will enforce the security goals set forth by the packager. Once this is done we want to try running core parts of RPM in different security domains depending on different attributes about the package and who is running it, such as what certificates were used to sign the package, where the package came from, who is running RPM and so on.

The culmination of this effort would be to be able to download a 3rd party package and install it knowing that it will only be able to add its files to /opt, and not modify anything in /usr, /lib, /etc, etc. Further the scriptlets should be confined so that they can’t add users to the system or any other security critical activities. This will be a truly exciting capability for Linux systems moving forward.

I delivered a presentation on this project at Linux Plumbers Conference last month in Portland. The slides and video recording are published on the web for those who are interested.

I’ll talk about another project we are working on in my next blog post, which should be coming pretty soon.

So, stackoverflow.com was released to public beta pretty recently and I must say I’m impressed. It looks like a great place to go to get tough programming (and other) questions answered. 
So, in order to give it a spin I posted the question Do you disable SELinux? 

It didn’t get nearly as many answers as What’s your favorite “programmer” cartoon but I did get mostly good feedback, it seems like the audience on stackoverflow, in general, have seen the positive progress of SELinux and many have chosen to keep it enabled (or even write policies and make it work for them).

Good to hear!

I’m in the process of moving my server from an ancient decrepit Gentoo install to a shiny new Ubuntu Hardy install with SELinux enabled.

Read the rest of this entry

Securing web browsers has always been a little tricky. With so many web applications available today, including corporate intranet sites, email and so on with confidential or proprietary information it is always a bit troublesome that web browsers essentially run in one security domain. The last thing I want is for a teller at my bank to go to some site that ends up getting bank info from another tab. Read the rest of this entry

This article was requested, and was a long time coming anyway.

I’ve gone over Multi-Level Security (MLS) a little bit before. It’s basically a security policy that is implemented by many trusted operating systems (such as Trusted Solaris) that is hierarchical and inflexible by nature. Specifically Bell-LaPadula (BLP) is used by many operating systems because it reflects the real world security policy used by the government and military. In BLP subjects and objects have a label consisting of a level (Secret, Top Secret, Unclassified, etc) and a set of non-hierarchical categories (US Only, Army, etc).

The sensitivies are hierarchical in that a higher sensitivity process labeled top secret can read and write top secret objects but only read unclassified objects. This prevents the ‘downgrade’ of classified information. For systems that conform to this kind of policy it makes perfect sense, a multi-level desktop system allows users to keep top secret and unclassified material on the same system but does not allow the release of top secret data to unclassified environments or users. Lower levels can also write to higher levels, in some cases. This may seem bad but considering what the policy is trying to accomplish allowing an unclassified process to write a top secret document doesn’t disclose top secret data. The catch is that the unclassified process would never be able to read the document after writing it. This policy is only usable for confidentiality, to prevent information from being released inappropriately. It cannot address integrity or other security goals I have mentioned in other articles.

Because traditional trusted operating systems only implemented BLP (and in some rare cases Biba for integrity) the users of such systems (primarily government and military) had to use it even when it wasn’t appropriate. One such case is a guard, or cross domain solution (CDS). A CDS is a system that allows two or more networks of differing security properties to be connected to one another. A typical CDS can connect a top secret to a secret network, for example, and allow information from the secret network onto the top secret network but not vice versa. CDS’s also do the opposite, allowing a controlled release of information from top secret to secret, or between two coalition networks (Such as Australia and the US). CDS’s always have some safety mechanism built in to prevent malicious data, or inappropriate data from going across it (if it didn’t it wouldn’t be any more useful than a crossover cable between the networks). These safety mechanisms are virus scanners, “dirty word” filters, document disassemblers (for example to take a word document and convert it to plain text or pdf), etc. The type of safety mechanism primarily depends on what kinds of networks the system is connecting.

For now we’ll talk about the first case, letting information flow from a secret network to a top secret network. Since a BLP system is designed to let information go from secret to top secret already it seems like an obvious fit, right? If the CDS was a very simple system with a process to read incoming data, a virus filter and an outgoing process it seems like a BLP policy would be fine. We are going to call the set of processes that pass data through the system the pipeline.

Wrong, there are actually multiple issues here. Because the lower levels would be allowed to write to higher levels, but not read from them we could label the incoming process Unclassified, the middle process Secret and the outgoing process Top Secret. This allows flow from the incoming process to the outgoing process. The main problem here is that since the levels are hierarchical there is nothing that stops the Unclassified process from writing directly to the Top Secret process (oops). Well, people figured this out and thought of a great work-around. Remember those categories? Categories allow reading and writing when the subject dominates (or has a superset) the categories of the object. So you give the incoming process categories that dominate the categories of the middle process but not the outgoing process.

So that problem is solved (albeit in an interesting way) but CDS’s are never that simple (I mean never). The requirements that are imposed on CDS’s specify pesky little things like logging, auditing, monitoring, emergency shutdown, etc. So now our simple CDS needs all processes to be able to talk to a logging system, and a monitoring system must ask the processes for their state and get back a response. So now we have one or more huge processes that can talk to and receive data from every process in the pipeline. That wouldn’t be so bad except the functional requirements of every guard I’ve seen says that those logs have to end up on the high side for consumption, which is obvious, they certainly can’t go to the low side because that would be a violation of the security policy. This, of course, allows information to flow through the logging and monitoring process out the other side without going through the set of filters. Sure, the advocates will say the logging and monitoring system is part of the TCB (Trusted Computing Base), the part of the system that is trusted to not do nasty things, but in a system like this do you want such processes to be trusted?

The above (totally professionally done) diagram shows the attack vector that would be used to get data through such a system. Because the logging/monitoring app is allowed to violate the MAC policy it is possible to use it to bypass filters 2, 3 and 4.

So basically its impossible to use a BLP policy on a guard and ensure that all data is passed through all filters before it reaches the other side, the policy simply wasn’t made for that kind of thing. It has been the standard operating procedure to shoehorn CDS’s into that policy for a very long time, however.

Before I get into how SELinux helps this I’ll quickly cover the other two types of guards I previously mentioned. First the High-to-Low guard. This kind of guard basically allows controlled downgrading of information; it will run filters like a ‘dirty word’ filter to ensure nothing that shouldn’t be getting downgraded isn’t. It may also redact some data. This CDS is a direct violation of the BLP policy, as such the processes essentially have to be MAC Exempt, or not subject to the policy, essentially making the existence of the policy irrelevant, it should be easy to see why this is an inappropriate use of BLP. The second was a CDS between two coalition partners. In this case the BLP policy doesn’t even mean anything since there is no high side and low side, merely ‘different’ sides.

So, those are the reasons why BLP is inappropriate for CDS’s, why is SELinux different?

SELinux primarily uses type enforcement for policy decisions. Type enforcement allows fine grained policy to be written for all subjects and objects on the system. In the case of CDS’s you can literally say incoming process can write to virus scanner (but not read) and virus scanner can write to outgoing process. We call this an assured pipeline. This can be used for any size or type of pipeline, we even have a tool called CDS Framework that lets you visualize the CDS system. But wait, what about all that logging and auditing and monitoring? Simple, since the policy can describe arbitrary relationships between processes we can break that logging and monitoring process up into filter size chunks, then allow each filter to read and write from the logging and monitoring app. The logging and monitoring app can then send its logs through the same pipeline as the data, it will end up on the high side but there is no additional large process you have to trust to allow it to happen. Using type enforcement we can ensure that every single bit of information that comes leaves the guard passed through every filter (we can’t, of course guarantee that the filters worked). Since type enforcement is not hierarchical the direction of the CDS doesn’t matter, we can do the same thing for High-to-Low that we do for Low-to-High, or even between coalition networks.

The above diagram shows a possible CDS configuration using type enforcement. It allows for logging and monitoring and simply passes those messages back through the filters to get them to the high side. In this configuration no single part of the pipeline is trusted to violate the policy, and filters can never be bypassed. This policy would be impossible to enforce with BLP.

Don’t take this to mean that I hate MLS and never think it’s useful. I’m not saying it kicks puppies (although it does occasional pee on rugs I’m told). MLS has a time and a place, just like everything else. The point I’m trying to make is that it shouldn’t be used if it isn’t appropriate, as has been done in the past (and continues to be done today).

Recently I was looking around for a piece of software and I thought to myself “I need something with a more liberal license than the GPL”.. Then I thought “Wait, is liberal the right word there? Hrm”…
So what do you guys think?

No, seriously. I’m not trying to be ironic because the title of my blog is “Brindle on Security”, which I should probably change to something more creative anyway.

During my tenure at Gentoo, running the Hardened Gentoo project, the most common question by far was “How do I secure my system?” Warning, this article may contain some flamebait, avoid it if you can’t resist flaming back .

Eventually we gave up and just pointed people to websites, perhaps this post can serve as that page. The answer was “What do you mean ’secure’ your system?” Security isn’t, and can’t be, a goal by itself. You need to know what exactly you are trying to protect yourself against, your threat model, as it were.
Read the rest of this entry

Now that Blu-Ray has all but won the HD format war I guess its a little late to post this but oh well, I’ll do it anyway.

Disclaimer: I am an HDDVD owner but this post is not a result of bitterness about my chosen format losing. The reason I’m posting here about (among others) is the actual reason I chose HDDVD. I also don’t want to talk about the pro’s and con’s of DRM or whether the DRM has been cracked and is accessible via other means. I am going to talk about the intentions of the format producers and what it means to consumers.

Read the rest of this entry

I just got a comment on my post about path based access control that was fairly startling to me. The more I thought about it, though, the more I thought maybe others shared the beliefs so I’m going to respond to it here.

inode-based security has analogous problems to path-based security. Software opens paths, not inodes, so it very much matters what the permissions are for the file at /etc/shadow or /var/data/mydb, regardless of what the inode happens to be. With an inode-based system, security may go out the window when programs replace or manipulate inodes, as many of them do.

Software opens paths because paths are the exposed abstraction for userspace applications. Sure it matters what permissions are on /etc/shadow, but those permissions and the access control alike is always done at the inode level, as I will demonstrate below. Applications that manipulate inodes have always needed to set security attributes on those inodes, look at passwd source code and you will see that it creates the inode with mode 400 (r——–).

So, neither AppArmor nor SELinux provide bullet proof security or data integrity, although both may be useful in protecting against some problems.

This is blatantly wrong, SELinux provides controls to specify precisely how things can be labeled. If my policy does not allow an application that handles confidential information to relabel or create a file with a label that is accessible by other applications there are no circumstances where that application will be able to leak the data. Similarly if an application can’t read low-integrity data and write to high-integrity files there are no circumstances where the application can harm the data integrity. I suggest you read some of the papers about SELinux policy analysis and information flow to understand the issues and how SELinux can address them. Many are available at the SELinux symposium website.

But arguments like the ones in this blog really make me doubt whether the SELinux people even understand the issues or have much of a notion of how files and security work on real-world UNIX systems.

As much as I’d like to ignore people using ad hominum attacks there may be others under this impression. Note the following demonstration as a counter example:

# ls -al /etc/shadow
-r-------- 1 root root 947 2007-06-06 03:40 /etc/shadow

# ln /etc/shadow /tmp/shadow
# ls -al /tmp/shadow
-r-------- 2 root root 947 2007-06-06 03:40 /tmp/shadow

# chmod 777 /tmp/shadow
# ls -al /etc/shadow
-rwxrwxrwx 2 root root 947 2007-06-06 03:40 /etc/shadow

It should be clear at this point that the UNIX permissions absolutely do not have anything to do with paths, only with inodes. This is how real-world UNIX systems have always worked, path based mechanisms break that convention and are subject to the issues I’ve noted in the path based article. The simple fact is that UNIX systems never ever use paths to determine access to anything, access control has always been centered around inodes and permissions set on inodes. Do not think that the existance of paths changes that, these are merely an abstraction to make userspace more useful.

The arguments against SELinux by the AppArmor people, and others, are purely functionality based arguments. They want to use paths because paths are easy to understand and paths have conventions that can be reflected in their policy (eg., that passwords are always stored in /etc/shadow and therefore that file should be protected). SELinux provides mechanisms to enforce many different security policies including protecting /etc/shadow and /var/data/mydb.