CMake is not and can never be a replacement for a package manager. They
serve entirely different roles. While you can extend CMake to give it
the ability to build and install all sorts stuff, that does not make it
a package manager. It's a convenient way to build a complex set of
interdependent packages, but that's all it is. I think trying to make
it do more than that is dangerous; it's currently got a fairly clearly
defined scope, and there are numerous established tools to take care of
packaging. Basically, I do worry about the potential for scope creep here.
Speaking from my own experience as one of the main authors of the Debian
build tools (sbuild, schroot):
- every package is built individually in a secure sandbox which is
created before the build and deleted after it. I wrote a tool
specifically for this purpose (schroot)--predating docker, openstack and
all the current hip stuff. You should probably use a more up to date
technology yourself; the main point I wanted to make was the isolation
of the filesystem, network, user etc. for the build step; we run the
build step without any functional networking other than the loopback to
ensure every package cleanly builds as a self-contained entity
- a package might be using CMake for its build, inside the sandbox, but
CMake has no involvement at a higher level
This means that any malicious or accidental privilege escalation, file
deletion or whatever is contained and will not cause problems. And if
there is anything wrong, we blow the whole lot away as a matter of
course anyway.
- when the packaged binary is installed, there is no code execution
outside the (optional) maintainer scripts; everything else is just a
static set of files which get installed. This is completely decoupled
from CMake, or whatever build system was used for the build step.
When it comes to CMake building using a super-build and/or running
find_package and executing third-party Config scripts, other CMake
modules etc. this is clearly unsafe. There's clearly scope for
unbounded code execution by this code. While these might be required
for the build step, there's no need for them to have any influence or
involvement for the package creation step and subsequent
installation/upgrade/removal by the package manager.
Regards,
Roger
On 20/08/16 22:42, Egor Pugin wrote:
Hi Tobias,
You are right at many points. It's hard to really secure the system
from build system/build artifacts/3rd party apps.
But step by step it's possible to decrease number of potential sources
of vulnerabilities.
Described cmake features would be very helpful for this.
Right now I'm just investigating possible security improvements and
this is only 'nice-to-have' feature.
On 21 August 2016 at 00:25, Tobias Hunger <tobias.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Egor,
Am 20.08.2016 13:48 schrieb "Egor Pugin" <egor.pu...@gmail.com>:
Hi,
I'm working on a package manager based on cmake.
And some cmake instructions are downloaded with user packages.
I'd like to have an ability to deny some cmake features in such
external untrusted insertions.
I am no CMake expert, but you are talking about securing a program that is
meant to take arbitrary input and run user-defined commands on that to
produce possibly executable output.
I do not see any safe subset of CMake commands that is still able to do
anything useful.
I can see a way for "insertions" to be useful, that does not involve them
changing the configuration (e.g. for a cross compiler), involve running some
3rd party program (e.g. to add support for a new documentation system,
parser generator or whatnot), or the production of build artifacts (e.g.
build some library for the developer to use).
*All* of these are inheritently unsafe.
Configuration change: Change the C compiler to rm and pass force -rf -- / as
flags.
3rd party program: Run rm -rf / when some certain input file is seen.
Build artifacts: Put running rm -rf / into the binary/library so that this
is run during normal development workflow.
I would try to run my package manager in an environment where running rm -rf
is harmless to the overall system health. Virtual machines or containers
spring to mind there. Not sure that is feasible.
Or come up with insertions signing, etc. so that users can at least know
they got what was uploaded and know whom to blame when their systems get
wiped.
Beat Regards,
Tobias
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more
information on each offering, please visit:
CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
