Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   <shinya1.takumi@toshiba.co.jp>
To:     <serge@hallyn.com>
CC:     <jmorris@namei.org>, <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC v3 0/2] WhiteEgret LSM module
Thread-Topic: [RFC v3 0/2] WhiteEgret LSM module
Thread-Index: AQHTyAJOnQ+9r2edhk+NYvbIB0nAd6PsWl+AgAVlmJCABVLegIAHHUDQ
Date:   Fri, 13 Apr 2018 04:30:30 +0000
Message-ID: <OSBPR01MB2184E8C11A5DEDA145A3B40E92B30@OSBPR01MB2184.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20180330083031.2199-1-masanobu2.koike@toshiba.co.jp>
 <20180401200827.GA28101@mail.hallyn.com>
 <OSBPR01MB21847D1D8A8BC8458CBAD39592BB0@OSBPR01MB2184.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <20180408155114.GE9715@mail.hallyn.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180408155114.GE9715@mail.hallyn.com>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: toshiba.co.jp does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8d9c3a34-3d3e-4458-d943-08d5a0f74a1a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Apr 2018 04:30:30.2495
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f109924e-fb71-4ba0-b2cc-65dcdf6fbe4f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OSBPR01MB1925
MSSCP.TransferMailToMossAgent: 103
X-OriginatorOrg: toshiba.co.jp
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> Do you have a target date for posting that?
Yes, we have the target date. We will submit WhiteEgret v4 by September.

> So you have a design for being able to differentiate the interpreters=20
> reading versus reading with the intent to execute?
> With or without their help?
We will provide WEUA sample to be able to control a script program with Whi=
teEgret v4.
Our WEUA sample does not identify whether to read or to read with the inten=
t to execute.=20
The sample has some restrictions.

We consider that the restrictions can be resolved by implementing additiona=
l functions for WEUA.
It is an implementation-dependent matter.

Howerver, we are sure that the restrictions are acceptable for many applica=
tions.
We would like to discuss about them with WhiteEgret v4 patch!

-----Original Message-----
> I am one of developers of WhiteEgret.
>=20
> > regardling the last one, do you have a plan for handling it?
> Yes, we have a plan to release WhiteEgret v4 patch with a WEUA sample of =
access control for script programs.

Do you have a target date for posting that?

> The latest WhiteEgret cannot control script programs since script files r=
ead by an interpreter are not hooked by the execve system call.
> We consider that script programs can be controlled by controlling the fil=
es inputted by interpreters, accordingly.=20
> We consider that the control can be realized using the read system call h=
ooking.

So you have a design for being able to differentiate the interpreters readi=
ng versus reading with the intent to execute?  With or without their help?

> Now, we are developing WhiteEgret with the read system call hooking and W=
EUA which controls the script files to be read to interpreters using inform=
ation from the read system call hooking and white list.

-serge