On Wed, February 24, 2016 12:25 pm, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 24.02.2016 um 16:07 schrieb Sylvain CANOINE:
>> Hello,
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "John Cenile" <jcenile1983@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Ã?: "centos" <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 24 Février 2016 15:42:36
>>> Objet: IPtables block user from outbound ICMP
>>> Is it possible at all to block all users other than root from sending
outbound ICMP packets on an interface?
>>> At the moment we have the following two rules in our IPtables config:
iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth1 -m owner --uid-owner 0 -j ACCEPT
>>> iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth1 -j DROP
>>> But this still allows ICMP for some reason (but *does* block other
TCP/UDP
>>> packets, which is what we want, as well as ICMP).
>> According to the iptables documentation
>> (http://ipset.netfilter.org/iptables.man.html), not specifying "-p" is
equivalent to specifying "-p all", which matches with all protocols,
icmp included. So these rules are good. BUT... I suppose /bin/ping has
a
>> suid bit set, no ?
>> Sylvain.
>> Pensez ENVIRONNEMENT : n'imprimer que si ncessaire
>
> Blocking the complete ICMP protocol is stupid and should not be
> recommended.
>
> ICMP echo request and echo reply are just 2 types of a bigger set of
necessary ICMP types. It is safe to block those 2 while that does not
really serve a purpose. A system not replying on ICMP echo request does
not hide it from others.
Indeed. Not replying ping is rather Windows-ish behavior (still standard
Windows behavior out of box. They still must have rather low opinion about
their own programmers I guess and still are scared of [in]famous "ping of
death").
If one doesn't trust local users to the extent one doesn't allow them to
send outbound pings, then one has rather large restriction imposing on
users work to do IMHO. I do have some boxes like that, and on these boxes
I indeed have rather restricted set of tools/commands accessible for
users. In addition, users though can build or download stuff, they can not
execute anything of their own. In other words, all places users can write
to are mounted with "nosuid, nosgid, noexec" options, the last one is the
one I mean here (do your own thinking why other two are also there). Once
that is done, you can remove "others" read and execute bits from ping
command (and other commands you don't want the to be able to use). Sending
ping in particular requires opening raw socket, which only root (and group
wheel) can do, that's why ping command has SGID set. But again, with that
level of trust to local users, outbound ping is tiny small thing out of
big list one has to do. I found this too tiresome to maintain this as a
real host, for this reason when I need something like that (awfully
restricted users, still having local access to the system), I just - hm,
somebody hopefully will chime in how to do similar thing on Linux; I'm
doing this on FreeBSD, and I just start separate jail, specifically
configured for users logins and local access to the system (which is not a
system, and which contains only tools I want to give users, the services
of this same host run in different jails, mostly one service per jail).
Hopefully, someone will tell how he/she does similar thing in CentOS.
Just my $0.02.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
