Bron, do you mean Sieve is separated from the rest of the Cyrus code or
that inside Sieve code there's separation for pure data processing
(without syscalls) and I/O & other resources handling, processes/threads
management, etc.? I my previous mail I was meaning the later.
If it's already done, that's great and everything is ready to define the
format for the "results" file and proceed with the seccomp
implementation, if all agree that this is a needed change.
*From:* Bron Gondwana Via Cyrus-devel
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 07, 2017 07:01
*To:* Cyrus-devel
*Subject:* Re: Cyrus Sieve futures
Actually, that's pretty much already done, the separation. Sieve, more
than any other part of the Cyrus code, is very decoupled. It used to be
a separate CVS repository once upon a time.
Bron.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, at 18:36, Anatoli via Cyrus-devel wrote:
Hi Ken,
I don't have any special uses for Sieve apart from the most basic
ones, but I would like to ask you if you see it feasible, as part of
this work, to separate the "numbers crunching" (e.g. rules matching,
transformations, etc.) code from the I/O code (that is responsible for
manipulating files, communicating with other processes, etc.)?
My idea is to isolate and safeguard Sieve's "numbers crunching" code
with <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seccomp> seccomp
<http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html>, which basically
only allows to execute userland code (i.e. no syscalls, etc.) and
read/write to already-open file descriptors. This should reduce
currently broad attack surface to some really exotic bugs in the Linux
kernel (up to now just one significant bug for strict seccomp bypass
was discovered (CVE-2009-0835 in 2.6 kernel 8 years ago), soon after
this functionality was implemented).
One of possible architectures could be described this way (similar to
Postfix architecture <http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html>):
1. Sieve daemon receives an incoming data for processing and stores
it in a memory buffer (without touching it)
2. It creates a new "results" file and opens it for writing
3. It forks a process
4. The newly created child process switches to seccomp
5. It processes the data and writes the results (in a special format)
to the "results" file, then exits
6. Sieve daemon detects the exit of the child process and reads the
"results" file to perform the requested actions, then deletes the file
7. If the child is killed (as the result of seccomp restrictions
violation) or something is wrong with the format of the "results"
file, Sieve daemon quarantines the data and writes an error to the
logs
The format for the "results" file should be simple and well defined,
and the code to interpret it should be carefully written. This could
be started as a mere adaptation for the new architecture of the
current actions processing logic and be progressively improved later.
This would be much easier than making the entire Sieve code base and
the libraries it uses (e.g. PCRE) reasonably safe (PCRE alone is a
huge bag ofvulnerabilities
<https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search-results?query=pcre&search_type=all&cves=on>,
including lots of RCEs).
Another question (just wondering if it's in your (or other devs) plans
and its feasibility): is it practically possible to implement for
Sieve something like "run the rules on X folder (+ subfolders)" same
way as local rules in most MUAs could be applied to already stored
mails? I find lack of this feature as the only (but notable) downside
to Sieve vs local rules.
Regards,
Anatoli
*From:* Ken Murchison Via Cyrus-devel
*Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2017 19:34
*To:* Cyrus-devel
*Subject:* Cyrus Sieve futures
All,
I'm in the process of rewriting the Sieve parser and adding new
extensions for what will become part of Cyrus v3.1. We currently
support deprecated and non-standardized extensions "imapflags"
(standardized as "imap4flags) and "notify" (standardized as
"enotify"). I'd like to rip out the parser and bytecode generator
for these extensions, and leave just the bytecode executing code for
the deprecated actions "mark", "unmark", and "denotify".
Any existing scripts using these actions (or the older "notify"
syntax) would continue to run. New/updated scripts would have to
switch to using the updated "notify" syntax and replace "mark" and
"unmark" with "setflag"/"addflag" and "removeflag". Does anyone have
an issue with these changes?
Does anyone have any requests for standard extensions that we don't
currently support? Note that "variables", "mailbox" and "*metadata"
will be in Cyrus 3.0 and "ereject", "editheader", and "extlists" are
already in what will be the 3.1 branch.
Extensions that I'm looking at implementing (pretty much because they
are low-hanging fruit) are "duplicate", "environment", and "ihave".
I may also look at "replace" and "extracttext" which would be useful
if we add handling of calendar events to Sieve.
--
Bron Gondwana
[email protected]
