On 8/5/20 10:03 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 10:45 -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
In addition to SELINUX_STATE and SELINUX_POLICY, we should also consider
the proposed LSM_STATE and LSM_POLICY func values but require an "lsm"
rule conditional.
So the current proposed rules:
measure func=LSM_STATE
measure func=LSM_POLICY
Would become:
measure func=LSM_STATE lsm=selinux
measure func=LSM_POLICY lsm=selinux
The following rules would be rejected:
measure func=LSM_STATE
measure func=LSM_POLICY
measure func=LSM_STATE lsm=apparmor
measure func=LSM_POLICY lsm=smack
Kees is cleaning up the firmware code which differentiated between how
firmware was loaded. There will be a single firmware enumeration.
Similarly, the new IMA hook to measure critical state may be placed in
multiple places. Is there really a need from a policy perspective for
differentiating the source of the critical state being measurind? The
data being measured should include some identifying information.
Yes Mimi - SELinux is including the identifying information in the
"event name" field. Please see a sample measurement of STATE and POLICY
for SELinux below:
10 e32e...5ac3 ima-buf sha256:86e8...4594
selinux-state-1595389364:287899386
696e697469616c697a65643d313b656e61626c65643d313b656e666f7263696e673d303b636865636b72657170726f743d313b6e6574776f726b5f706565725f636f6e74726f6c733d313b6f70656e5f7065726d733d313b657874656e6465645f736f636b65745f636c6173733d313b616c776179735f636865636b5f6e6574776f726b3d303b6367726f75705f7365636c6162656c3d313b6e6e705f6e6f737569645f7472616e736974696f6e3d313b67656e66735f7365636c6162656c5f73796d6c696e6b733d303
10 f4a7...9408 ima-ng sha256:8d1d...1834
selinux-policy-hash-1595389353:863934271
I think moving away from the idea that measuring "critical" data should
be limited to LSMs, will clarify this.
Are you suggesting that instead of calling the hooks LSM_STATE and
LSM_POLICY, we should keep it more generic so that it can be utilized by
any subsystem to measure their "critical data"?
I think that is a good idea.
-lakshmi
