On 11/17/2017 2:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Roberto Sassu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 11/7/2017 2:37 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

quoted

Normally, the protection of kernel memory is out of scope for IMA.
This patch set introduces an in kernel white list, which would be a
prime target for attackers looking for ways of by-passing IMA-
measurement, IMA-appraisal and IMA-audit.  Others might disagree, but
from my perspective, this risk is too high.

BTW, which part of the series does the whitelist? I'd agree generally,
though: we don't want to make things writable if they're normally
read-only.

Patch 5/15 introduces the hash table ima_digests_htable and the
functions to add/search file digests

Patches 6-7-8/15 add file digests to ima_digests_htable

Patch 10/15 searches file digests in ima_digests_htable


Original files containing digest lists are discarded after being parsed.

quoted

It would be much easier for an attacker to just set ima_policy_flag to
zero.

That's a fair point. I wonder if ima_policy_flag could be marked
__ro_after_init? Most of the writes are from __init sections, but I
haven't looked closely at when ima_update_policy() gets called.

Unfortunately not. New policies can be loaded by writing to a file in
the securityfs filesystem. They could enable different actions
(measurement/appraisal/audit).

Roberto

-- 
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063
Managing Director: Bo PENG, Qiuen PENG, Shengli WANG
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html