Re: OT? Are chroots immune to buffer overflows?

From: Hank Leininger (vuln-dev@progressive-comp.com)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 10:59:35 PDT

  • Next message: Patrick Harper: "RE: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls...."

    On 2002-05-23, Jan Werner <xianat_private> wrote:
    
    > On Wed, 22 May 2002, L. Walker wrote:
    
    > > > [note: my question is WRT non-root chrooted jails - we all know
    > > > about chroot'ing root processes!]
    
    > There are ways to break out of chroot'ed environment:
    > 1. If the chroot'ed program does not chdir("/") then there's way to
    [snip]
    > 2. If system does not provide any limitations for jail you can trace
    > programs outside of jail send them signals use raw devices etc ...
    
    ...And of course several other things (mknod/open, mount, ioctl, sysctl,
    kill, etc) can get you into trouble if you let a (e)uidzero process loose
    inside a chroot jail.  Note that the original question included a
    disclaimer that that wasn't what he was interested in :-P
    
    > Some limitations for linux (I remind that this OS appeared in thread )
    > can be implemented for example grsecurity kernel patch
    > http://grsecurity.net/features.html
    
    GRSecurity has a number of things rolled into it; afaik the chroot
    protections it does come from my HAP-Linux patches (I support only 2.2.x,
    they updated things to 2.4; they also make the CONFIG options more granular
    and add sysctl knobs).  Ultimately, trying to be safe in the face of a
    compromise of uidzero inside chroot is doomed to failure.  However, I would
    be very interested to hear about any specific ways to break chroot that I
    haven't already covered (I think sysv shmem, etc is still a problem
    currently); look for CONFIG_SECURE_CHROOT in:
    
    http://www.theaimsgroup.com/~hlein/hap-linux/
    
    Thanks,
    
    Hank Leininger <hlein@progressive-comp.com> 
      
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 28 2002 - 12:47:54 PDT