Re: checksums after reboot

2020-02-07 Thread TronDD 
On Fri Feb 7, 2020 at 2:40 PM, Justin Muir wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> 
> Posting here for the first time! Using OBSD as daily laptop OS. Trying
> to
> be a little more security conscious these days by keeping checksums on
> system files with mtree. Did a reboot and several files were changed
> including libcrypto.so, ld.so and several other system-level files. Is
> this
> normal??
>

Yes.  At boot, rc(8) relinks some of the system libraries in order to
randomize the layout of the code.

Your kernel is also reordered for the next reboot.

Tim.

checksums after reboot

2020-02-07 Thread Justin Muir 
Hello all,

Posting here for the first time! Using OBSD as daily laptop OS. Trying to
be a little more security conscious these days by keeping checksums on
system files with mtree. Did a reboot and several files were changed
including libcrypto.so, ld.so and several other system-level files. Is this
normal??

mtree output follows:


mtree: /bin checksum: 1727474656
mtree: /sbin checksum: 3442833101
mtree: /usr checksum: 1137647171
lib:modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:38 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:32
2020)
lib/libc.so.95.1:
size (2893116, 2893120)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:36 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:30 2020)
cksum (3157776744, 4009476025)
MD5 (ab1ac574505c48273fedbbc0ce628837, 79bd6ff366c43996d157916fb63582f7)
SHA1 (ab723fb1ee1d29ee2ef9282f7a9a05b2c7baa0a7,
0f2197e19d56de6876159b36aac12ca6ec2f8246)
SHA256 (491b6c07959ff7b67786482f9b2b8ee3ba9ed3da501c0d8aa61bdc4ff05962f3,
4b41309ed9a31f40df7a4b15a83d2911b8fe49713258d6f4a0477e3925ed352e)
lib/libcrypto.so.45.5:
size (5547056, 5542960)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:38 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:32 2020)
cksum (198244208, 1460674157)
MD5 (a3106c3da6334b5e66678471cfc616a2, e1b2bb24ef6e666bf70e383bce21341e)
SHA1 (7ccdb9bbfe91bf90f51a968f8681f7ab46311ee7,
9859801e46dce71101faab10d08aba2808f1c05b)
SHA256 (85cdf3a869f7b3188e87b813c670e416254684c81899ecbb0d186d87170aca75,
99e632e94af1856eb5f68aa4e0615a6d308e016b5cd8dfd8870038880d1fbc23)
libexec:
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:32 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:26 2020)
libexec/ld.so:
size (215548, 215552)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:32 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:26 2020)
cksum (1247483624, 793552794)
MD5 (9905b266b14fc2d226ae92586dd1f3d0, f1771f9168554ce3bde6cd79e05198b2)
SHA1 (3087dc9e170a80908a19edebf72fe3907b4c647a,
6718f467ef5fbeabfab9d1bd2bf0122e039f5ad6)
SHA256 (ce71cc30020003075394870afaef4cc1794ab338372fc6a97c5d3a6eba6f096b,
76e6b6b95b42b5da0f3e2c111bd2832146b0712777dbde37a0f25204d88c6afa)
libexec/ld.so.save:
size (215552, 215548)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:32 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:26 2020)
cksum (1798370619, 1247483624)
MD5 (f0e64f89b1fcbff4806d69ca445a0c51, 9905b266b14fc2d226ae92586dd1f3d0)
SHA1 (3ea8795779523b9068095a2cae4d4388d75aeeed,
3087dc9e170a80908a19edebf72fe3907b4c647a)
SHA256 (e9700844dfdbbbef868acdda2843508a02611f093e901fbbf622d9bea40813ca,
ce71cc30020003075394870afaef4cc1794ab338372fc6a97c5d3a6eba6f096b)
share/relink:
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:39 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:33 2020)
share/relink/kernel/GENERIC:
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:42:30 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:05:24 2020)
share/relink/kernel/GENERIC/bsd:
size (13945700, 13925900)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:42:30 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:05:24 2020)
cksum (464539173, 3244898984)
MD5 (2e406172ac7ea57fd1f56cdba1f60b9f, aa1e9e6168ace6cc91d82e2aa2fb411d)
SHA1 (4c23d13593deddab012cf82cd1e67ceaeab46416,
1007ca8ce0812310a5a26f3d9060a0e9a417e068)
SHA256 (362e93fadea3e3bdf8e50cc56990f937396f0609a0621dc302630b1080b9cf31,
1d1cf22ac0ad326b2e3ca3d4a2e6be504642c9a11fe037a1813aa1a4c91ef802)
share/relink/kernel/GENERIC/gap.link:
size (634, 631)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:48 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:42 2020)
cksum (1981958432, 961752797)
MD5 (589ad1b6f4305d090dbb7e2158c2bb35, 0ba71faab2723a5aabde95d4f07725be)
SHA1 (6b4c02f46d4395da19b22f95ba28980f15a6b994,
b52aadc87f24bae637fec694b0f93a8b4965a0fc)
SHA256 (cdd29668abd765048142c080c7a35e09872230859d6bab1d92834956aa513343,
46e43e101d671057924ad720a2ae0d483dced103cd8740700d816ea767e5bd2e)
share/relink/kernel/GENERIC/gap.o:
size (21800, 14104)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:48 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:42 2020)
cksum (1090661334, 3982993640)
MD5 (053a341056b532d186c5c4fff1791e28, 75577d98b4806bee0fdcb11cda4cf0d6)
SHA1 (fc70c1c93f88f29ae879dbdb9caaf6b182b42a50,
71e868021e27081dec7caf44598abec56b0d71f0)
SHA256 (db6fec4c6a83d4a83fb741e6d2d5404c150a60ab6ec5a59461509dca4dd60eb6,
2d5f14542c8b0ce723cec5ddfc061b7d004e4affdde8d598b7283e9e28a992aa)
share/relink/kernel/GENERIC/lorder:
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:41:48 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:04:42 2020)
cksum (3296514911, 652483269)
MD5 (66b1c2484aac81982c3f94079cadb56f, f8861886168cdcfb068e904066b8c4eb)
SHA1 (7580d260d7f4585d61d931ffcf1a90efd615329e,
6af7b9d6a181d8077905e0067deff3008074727b)
SHA256 (9c853f9fce52528d93c1a502df80c446b333860197ba41aa52304e7f027b846b,
05afcba96ca3eb09028ef535e2e722c2a0c6a5c13d90dd6b5871cfb7485f362c)
share/relink/kernel/GENERIC/newbsd.gdb:
size (63382308, 63370020)
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:42:21 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:05:15 2020)
cksum (1806893663, 2736864751)
MD5 (7e6ecd5e1e84d61fdadf3c8f4ff5791e, 83e37a3e229a6d55ff5b075c8030e0c9)
SHA1 (fbfd507a689705626129ee98c3b41e4f3277fc1d,
1c0761c2451ee8698195017098e1ffd9af04c089)
SHA256 (951dd865332281779e1f17320e8b954c39b31eff46f2b4267e010464a1ba7ea6,
e2622e41ee2cf5dcde6c00f557d7ff46908546340550617a5feaf0071e689673)
share/relink/kernel/GENERIC/relink.log:
modification time (Wed Jan 22 12:42:31 2020, Tue Feb  4 12:05:25

Re: chroot vs unveil

2020-02-07 Thread Theo de Raadt 
whistlez...@riseup.net wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:35:17AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Kevin Chadwick  wrote:
> > 
> > > I am considering replacing all chroot use with unveil in my processes 
> > > even where
> > > no filesystem access is required.
> > 
> > I am discouraging this.
> > 
> > unveil is a complicated mechanism, and we may still discover a bug in
> > it.
> > 
> > Almost all the chroot in the tree are to empty unwriteable directories,
> > in which case chroot is very secure and a very simple mechanism.
> > 
> 
> you'd suggest the same for the browsers ?

they don't use chroot, and they cannot.

chroot is *only* available to root.

Re: chroot vs unveil

2020-02-07 Thread whistlez-ml 
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:35:17AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Kevin Chadwick  wrote:
> 
> > I am considering replacing all chroot use with unveil in my processes even 
> > where
> > no filesystem access is required.
> 
> I am discouraging this.
> 
> unveil is a complicated mechanism, and we may still discover a bug in
> it.
> 
> Almost all the chroot in the tree are to empty unwriteable directories,
> in which case chroot is very secure and a very simple mechanism.
> 

you'd suggest the same for the browsers ?
thank you

Re: chroot vs unveil

2020-02-07 Thread Kevin Chadwick 
> 
>> I am considering replacing all chroot use with unveil in my processes even 
>> where
>> no filesystem access is required.
> 
> I am discouraging this.
> 
> unveil is a complicated mechanism, and we may still discover a bug in
> it.
> 
> Almost all the chroot in the tree are to empty unwriteable directories,
> in which case chroot is very secure and a very simple mechanism.
> 

I shall do the same then, thank you for the guidance.