On 10/27/2021 1:26 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
From: Deven Bowers [mailto:deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 9:04 PM
On 10/25/2021 4:30 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
From:deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
From: Deven Bowers<deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Overview:
---------
IPE is a Linux Security Module which takes a complimentary approach to
access control. Whereas existing systems approach use labels or paths
which control access to a resource, IPE controls access to a resource
based on the system's trust of said resource.
To me, it does not give a particularly precise idea of what IPE is about.
It would have been more clear, assuming that I understood it correctly,
if you have said:
Whereas existing mandatory access control mechanisms base their
decisions on labels and paths, IPE instead determines whether or not
an operation should be allowed based on immutable security properties
of the system component the operation is being performed on.
IPE itself does not mandate how the security property should be
evaluated, but relies on an extensible set of external property providers
to evaluate the component. IPE makes its decision based on reference
values for the selected properties, specified in the IPE policy.
The reference values represent the value that the policy writer and the
local system administrator (based on the policy signature) trust for the
system to accomplish the desired tasks.
One such provider is for example dm-verity, which is able to represent
the integrity property of a partition (its immutable state) with a digest.
You understood it perfectly, and managed to word in a much more clear
way than I did. I'll apply these changes in the next posting! Thanks.
Welcome.
Trust requirements are established via IPE's policy, sourcing multiple
different implementations within the kernel to build a cohesive trust
model, based on how the system was built.
Trust, with respect to computing, is a concept that designates a set
of entities who will endorse a set of resources as non-malicious.
Traditionally, this is done via signatures, which is the act of endorsing
a resource.
Integrity, on the other hand, is the concept of ensuring that a resource
has not been modified since a point of time. This is typically done through
cryptographic hashes or signatures.
Trust and integrity are very closely tied together concepts, as integrity
is the way you can prove trust for a resource; otherwise it could have
been modified by an entity who is untrusted.
IPE provides a way for a user to express trust requirements of resources,
by using pre-existing systems which provide the integrity half of the
equation.
IPE is compiled under CONFIG_SECURITY_IPE.
Use Cases
---------
IPE works best in fixed-function devices: Devices in which their purpose
is clearly defined and not supposed to be changed (e.g. network firewall
device in a data center, an IoT device, etcetera), where all software and
configuration is built and provisioned by the system owner.
IPE is a long-way off for use in general-purpose computing:
the Linux community as a whole tends to follow a decentralized trust
model, known as the Web of Trust, which IPE has no support for as of yet.
Instead, IPE supports the PKI Trust Model, which generally designates a
set of entities that provide a measure absolute trust.
It is true that packages are signed with PGP, which is decentralized,
but there is a special case where Linux distribution vendors trust
their own keys. This, at least, would allow to trust the software built
by a particular vendor (I ported David Howells's work on PGP keys and
signature to the current kernel).
Yes, that is true. I figured that this scenario was somewhat obvious,
as it is, at a high level, similar to PKI but I can certainly add it
explicitly.
Perfect.
Additionally, while most packages are signed today, the files inside
the packages (for instance, the executables), tend to be unsigned. This
makes it difficult to utilize IPE in systems where a package manager is
expected to be functional, without major changes to the package manager
and ecosystem behind it.
Yes, RPMs don't have per file signatures but have a signature of the
list of file digests, which is equivalent. They could have also the fsverity
digests (instead of the fsverity signatures) to reduce size overhead.
Given that the authenticity of RPMs headers can be verified, if the
PGP key of the vendor is included in the primary keyring of the kernel,
being able to protect file or fsverity digests against tampering by
user space and being able to query them (e.g. with DIGLIM) extends
the applicability of IPE to general purpose OSes.
Agreed. With these two functionalities, it does appear that IPE + DIGLIM
can be used for general purpose RPM-based OSes. I'll add a reference to
your recent posting (v3?) as a way to extend the functionality to general
purposes OSes in the next revision.
Ok. Yes, v3 is the latest.
Policy:
-------
IPE policy is a plain-text [#]_ policy composed of multiple statements
over several lines. There is one required line, at the top of the
policy, indicating the policy name, and the policy version, for
instance:
policy_name="Ex Policy" policy_version=0.0.0
The policy version indicates the current version of the policy (NOT the
policy syntax version). This is used to prevent roll-back of policy to
potentially insecure previous versions of the policy.
The next portion of IPE policy, are rules. Rules are formed by key=value
pairs, known as properties. IPE rules require two properties: "action",
Better:
IPE rules require two keys:
Ack.
which determines what IPE does when it encounters a match against the
policy, and "op", which determines when that rule should be evaluated.
Thus, a minimal rule is:
op=EXECUTE action=ALLOW
This example will allow any execution. Additional properties are used to
restrict attributes about the files being evaluated. These properties are
intended to be deterministic attributes that are resident in the kernel.
Available properties for IPE described in the documentation patch of this
series.
A rule is required to have the "op" property as the first token of a rule,
and the "action" as the last token of the rule. Rules are evaluated
top-to-bottom. As a result, any revocation rules, or denies should be
placed early in the file to ensure that these rules are evaluated before
a rule with "action=ALLOW" is hit.
Any unknown syntax in IPE policy will result in a fatal error to parse
the policy. User mode can interrogate the kernel to understand what
properties and the associated versions through the securityfs node,
$securityfs/ipe/config, which will return a string of form:
key1=version1
key2=version2
.
.
.
keyN=versionN
User-mode should correlate these versions with the supported values
identified in the documentation to determine whether a policy should
be accepted by the system without actually trying to deploy the policy.
Additionally, a DEFAULT operation must be set for all understood
operations within IPE. For policies to remain completely forwards
compatible, it is recommended that users add a "DEFAULT action=ALLOW"
and override the defaults on a per-operation basis.
For more information about the policy syntax, the kernel documentation
page.
Early Usermode Protection:
--------------------------
IPE can be provided with a policy at startup to load and enforce.
This is intended to be a minimal policy to get the system to a state
where userland is setup and ready to receive commands, at which
point a policy can be deployed via securityfs. This "boot policy" can be
specified via the config, SECURITY_IPE_BOOT_POLICY, which accepts a path
to a plain-text version of the IPE policy to apply. This policy will be
compiled into the kernel. If not specified, IPE will be disabled until a
policy is deployed and activated through the method above.
Policy Examples:
----------------
Allow all:
policy_name="Allow All" policy_version=0.0.0
DEFAULT action=ALLOW
Allow only initial superblock:
policy_name="Allow All Initial SB" policy_version=0.0.0
DEFAULT action=DENY
op=EXECUTE boot_verified=TRUE action=ALLOW
Allow any signed dm-verity volume and the initial superblock:
policy_name="AllowSignedAndInitial" policy_version=0.0.0
DEFAULT action=DENY
op=EXECUTE boot_verified=TRUE action=ALLOW
op=EXECUTE dmverity_signature=TRUE action=ALLOW
Prohibit execution from a specific dm-verity volume:
policy_name="AllowSignedAndInitial" policy_version=0.0.0
DEFAULT action=DENY
op=EXECUTE
dmverity_roothash=401fcec5944823ae12f62726e8184407a5fa9599783f030dec
146938 action=DENY
op=EXECUTE boot_verified=TRUE action=ALLOW
op=EXECUTE dmverity_signature=TRUE action=ALLOW
Allow only a specific dm-verity volume:
policy_name="AllowSignedAndInitial" policy_version=0.0.0
DEFAULT action=DENY
op=EXECUTE
dmverity_roothash=401fcec5944823ae12f62726e8184407a5fa9599783f030dec
146938 action=ALLOW
Deploying Policies:
-------------------
First sign a plain text policy, with a certificate that is present in
the SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING of your test machine. Through openssl, the
signing can be done via:
openssl smime -sign -in "$MY_POLICY" -signer "$MY_CERTIFICATE" \
-inkey "$MY_PRIVATE_KEY" -binary -outform der -noattr -nodetach \
-out "$MY_POLICY.p7s"
Then, simply cat the file into the IPE's "new_policy" securityfs node:
cat "$MY_POLICY.p7s" > /sys/kernel/security/ipe/new_policy
The policy should now be present under the policies/ subdirectory, under
its "policy_name" attribute.
The policy is now present in the kernel and can be marked as active,
via the securityfs node:
echo "1" > "/sys/kernel/security/ipe/$MY_POLICY_NAME/active"
This will now mark the policy as active and the system will be enforcing
$MY_POLICY_NAME.
There is one requirement when marking a policy as active, the policy_version
attribute must either increase, or remain the same as the currently running
policy.
Policies can be updated via:
cat "$MY_UPDATED_POLICY.p7s" > \
"/sys/kernel/security/ipe/policies/$MY_POLICY_NAME/update"
Additionally, policies can be deleted via the "delete" securityfs
node. Simply write "1" to the corresponding node in the policy folder:
echo "1" > "/sys/kernel/security/ipe/policies/$MY_POLICY_NAME/delete"
There is only one requirement to delete policies, the policy being
deleted must not be the active policy.
NOTE: The securityfs commands will require CAP_MAC_ADMIN.
Integrations:
-------------
This patch series adds support for fsverity via digest and signature
(fsverity_signature and fsverity_digest), dm-verity by digest and
signature (dmverity_signature and dmverity_roothash), and trust for
the initramfs (boot_verified).
Verifying the initial ram disk looks like a big problem. On general
purpose OSes, having a reference value for it would be very hard.
Instead, we would still be able to use per file reference values.
Executable and shared libraries in the initial ram disk are copied
from the main OS. Without fsverity support in tmpfs, I wonder
if it would be still possible to mark the file as immutable and do
an on the fly calculation of the root digest.
Yes, verifying the initial ramdisk is very difficult. "boot_verified",
is largely an assumption of trust as all the warning shows in the
documentation; it assumes the boot stack verified the initramfs somehow
(i.e. u-boot verified boot with it in the fitImage), and 'pins' (similar
to loadpin) the superblock to allow execution from that superblock.
As an alternative, the IMA approach of calculating the file digest
could be used (or IPE could get the file digest as a property from
the integrity subsystem).
In general, I would like to keep as much of the implementation of the
integrity mechanisms out of IPE as much as possible - there are likely
much better layers to implement new ways of providing integrity /
authenticity claims than at the lsm layer within IPE.
That would be still the case. The integrity subsystem will be still
responsible to calculate the file digest and maintain it in a per
inode metadata. Then, IPE could evaluate the file digest as the
same as for the fsverity digest:
op=EXECUTE integrity_digest=<hex> action=ALLOW
integrity_digest will be handled by a separate IPE module which
communicates with the integrity subsystem.
Sure, I'm happy with this. My comment was originally to the first half
of your response ("the IMA approach of calculating the file digest
could be used"); I don't see that as part of IPE's purpose.
I wanted to draw as rough boundary between what I find acceptable
as an IPE extension and what isn't.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
