Re: State of Audit Proposal ?

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 15:16:47 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: State of Audit Proposal ?"

    "KRAMER,STEVEN (HP-USA,ex1)" wrote:
    
    > Why is it that MAC and DAC both must return the same error messages?
    
    As per my previous post, modules don't have to return the same error codes
    that DAC returns, but if a module returns anything different than what DAC
    would return, it is the module that creates the covert channel.  This
    covert channel is created regardless of the MAC/DAC sequence, because the
    attacker can determine which layer denied the access, regardless of the
    order.  Only by returning precisely the same error code is the covert
    channel closed.
    
    The only covert channel that is affected by the MAC/DAC checking sequence
    is the timing covert channel.  The attacker could potentially determine
    whether whether it was DAC or MAC that denied the request, depending on how
    long the access check takes to run.  There are several major problems with
    trying to close this timing covert channel with LSM:
    
       * Hard to fix: Linux is performance-tuned, so it leaks timing covert
         channel information all over the place. This makes it fairly difficult
         for LSM to mask timing covert channels, other than by using sys call
         interposition and throwing random delay into every system call.  Ick.
       * Loow priority:
            o It is very hard to exploit:  Linux is a noisy environment, so it
              is hard to infer the result based on timing.
            o The attacker doen't gain that much: so the attacker knows whether
              it was DAC or MAC that denied the request. How much leverage does
              that buy? IMHO, not very much.
    
    > I'm also curious as to why you don't think Linux is an appropriate
    > system for which to eliminate covert channels.
    
    I don't regard it as feasible to defeat covert channels in anything more
    complex than a smart card.  Even there, it has proven fairly difficult to
    mitigate covert channels, e.g. the attack that discloses private keys based
    on the smartcard CPU's power consumption during eponentiation.
    
    Crispin
    
    --
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 22:39:21 PDT