From: mgrepl@redhat.com (Miroslav Grepl) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:27:52 +0000 Subject: [refpolicy] [patch 1/3] Implementation of system conf type In-Reply-To: <4D63DD00.2070103@redhat.com> References: <4D5E95C1.9080805@redhat.com> <20110219095711.GA6270@siphos.be> <1298180267.3098.11.camel@tesla.lan> <4D62875A.8060006@redhat.com> <1298319075.11119.3.camel@tesla.lan> <4D63DA61.3050705@tresys.com> <4D63DD00.2070103@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4D63F218.3020302@redhat.com> To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On 02/22/2011 03:57 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/22/2011 10:46 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: >> On 02/21/11 15:11, Guido Trentalancia wrote: >>> On Mon, 21/02/2011 at 10.40 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >>>> On 02/20/2011 12:37 AM, Guido Trentalancia wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 19/02/2011 at 10.57 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 03:52:33PM +0000, Miroslav Grepl wrote: >>>>>>> http://mgrepl.fedorapeople.org/F15/system_conf_implemantion_p1.patch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Implementation of system conf type for manageable system >>>>>>> configuration files. >>>>>> Isn't a generic system configuration type a bit too broad for a security >>>>>> policy? We already have etc_t. >>>>> I agree with Sven, it appears to be rather useless (at least for the use >>>>> that is being made so far in the patches that have been posted) and it >>>>> just introduces a redundancy of types. >>>>> >>>>> But Sven, I believe this is stuff just intended for Fedora 15. It won't >>>>> affect the rest of us. I don't even understand why it has been posted >>>>> with the [PATCH] tag in the subject on this mailing list. Some stuff >>>>> won't even build on refpolicy because there are missing bits (such as >>>>> missing interfaces that have never been defined in refpolicy and that >>>>> are only being used by Fedora as part of their customisations). >>>>> >>>> When you have a type a domain needs to write, you do not want that type >>>> to be etc_t. In this case several confined domains needs to be able to >>>> write firewall rules, I believe. If we give tools like >>>> system-config-firewall the ability to write etc_t, it can replace >>>> /etc/passwd and other key config files. So an exploit can be used to >>>> take over the entire machine, if we add a new type, then >>>> system-config-firewall will only be allowed to write firewall rules and >>>> not most files within the /etc tree. >> I am against system_conf_t as it is too generic. Yes, we'd like to curb >> writing to etc_t. But creating another generic type is not the answer. >> In a year or two, we'd be in the same boat except with system_conf_t >> instead of (or maybe in addition to) etc_t. >> >> I don't understand why system-config-firewall would need to write to >> etc_t, the iptables rules have their own labeling: >> >> /etc/sysconfig/ip6?tables.* -- >> gen_context(system_u:object_r:iptables_conf_t,s0) >> /etc/sysconfig/system-config-firewall.* -- >> gen_context(system_u:object_r:iptables_conf_t,s0) >> >>> Yes, this is very important. But isn't etc_runtime_t what is needed here >>> then ? >> No, the purpose of that type is for generated files such as /.autofsck >> and /etc/motd. >> >> >> > I am fine with the iptables_conf_t also, not sure why mgrepl changed the > label. The problem is with sysctl.conf/systctl.conf.old files which are writeable/created by s-c-firewall. My first idea was adding of the iptables_conf_t type for these files. But we were discussing it and since sysctl.conf is used for more than just network settings so using the iptables_conf_t label for it seemed fishy. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk1j3QAACgkQrlYvE4MpobMwTgCguDuLlwCC0V10z94QzIZWCqyT > ITkAn1P1KcmimuBZxRdSNI/eLJgT+FTF > =Ug15 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----