Hello Mirek, This is the most constructive reply I've seen in this thread.
On Monday, January 31, 2022 1:12:50 PM EST Miloslav Trmac wrote: > > But doesn't satisfy our security requirements. If the kernel dbus project > > had been successful, then Linux would have had a rock solid basis to > > allow impersonation which would satisfy the security requirements and > > allow the desktop actually go through a common criteria certification if > > any one ever wanted to do that. But as it stands, anything created by > > IPC is missing the necessary security context. > > I mean, yes. I read that as not a reason to stick with set-uid, but as a > reason to make that a priority, and drive the investment and the cultural > change; otherwise Linux security is just going to keep falling behind. OTOH > with the consolehelper history and a lot of similar examples, I don’t know > how to do any of that (make it a priority, drive the investment, drive the > cultural change). Linux needs a first class impersonation mechanism. This would be where the kernel bestows upon a process, certain attributes from another process. Both sides should agree so that no toke kidnapping is possible or forcing credentials on an unsuspecting process. With something like this, we can start to solve the security problems caused by IPC instantiation. I was really hoping kernel dbus was successful way back when. > > And access decisions do not go through the audit system. > > For polkit, that would be… a 20-line patch? Probably a little more. The auditing would need to be selective and by admin control. Meaning, the admin may decide that they want auditing of one application's permission grants and not the other. > Sure, the invoking user’s configuration can be trusted only to the extent a > D-Bus server provides it correctly to Polkit, making the D-Bus servers a > part of the trusted codebase. Still, that would be pretty valuable at least > until the first successful exploit. I was hoping with kernel dbus, polkit would have examined the connections itself and asked the kernel for veracity of the request. I really wished that was given another try and everyone agreed on why it was necessary so that it could be articulated well to the people that have to say yes/no to the patch. -Steve _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
