Recent blog entries for mjg59

Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

The Linux Foundation is an industry organisation dedicated to promoting, protecting and standardising Linux and open source software[1]. The majority of its board is chosen by the member companies - 10 by platinum members (platinum membership costs $500,000 a year), 3 by gold members (gold membership costs $100,000 a year) and 1 by silver members (silver membership costs between $5,000 and $20,000 a year, depending on company size). Up until recently individual members ($99 a year) could also elect two board members, allowing for community perspectives to be represented at the board level.

As of last Friday, this is no longer true. The by-laws were amended to drop the clause that permitted individual members to elect any directors. Section 3.3(a) now says that no affiliate members may be involved in the election of directors, and section 5.3(d) still permits at-large directors but does not require them[2]. The old version of the bylaws are here - the only non-whitespace differences are in sections 3.3(a) and 5.3(d).

These changes all happened shortly after Karen Sandler announced that she planned to stand for the Linux Foundation board during a presentation last September. A short time later, the "Individual membership" program was quietly renamed to the "Individual supporter" program and the promised benefit of being allowed to stand for and participate in board elections was dropped (compare the old page to the new one). Karen is the executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, an organisation involved in the vitally important work of GPL enforcement. The Linux Foundation has historically been less than enthusiastic about GPL enforcement, and the SFC is funding a lawsuit against one of the Foundation's members for violating the terms of the GPL. The timing may be coincidental, but it certainly looks like the Linux Foundation was willing to throw out any semblance of community representation just to ensure that there was no risk of someone in favour of GPL enforcement ending up on their board.

Much of the code in Linux is written by employees paid to do this work, but significant parts of both Linux and the huge range of software that it depends on are written by community members who now have no representation in the Linux Foundation. Ignoring them makes it look like the Linux Foundation is interested only in promoting, protecting and standardising Linux and open source software if doing so benefits their corporate membership rather than the community as a whole. This isn't a positive step.

[1] Article II of the bylaws
[2] Other than in the case of the TAB representative, an individual chosen by a board elected via in-person voting at a conference

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2016-01-20 23:21:53 from Matthew Garrett

The current state of boot security

I gave a presentation at 32C3 this week. One of the things I said was "If any of you are doing seriously confidential work on Apple laptops, stop. For the love of god, please stop." I didn't really have time to go into the details of that at the time, but right now I'm sitting on a plane with a ridiculous sinus headache and the pseudoephedrine hasn't kicked in yet so here we go.

The basic premise of my presentation was that it's very difficult to determine whether your system is in a trustworthy state before you start typing your secrets (such as your disk decryption passphrase) into it. If it's easy for an attacker to modify your system such that it's not trustworthy at the point where you type in a password, it's easy for an attacker to obtain your password. So, if you actually care about your disk encryption being resistant to anybody who can get temporary physical possession of your laptop, you care about it being difficult for someone to compromise your early boot process without you noticing.

There's two approaches to this. The first is UEFI Secure Boot. If you cryptographically verify each component of the boot process, it's not possible for a user to compromise the boot process. The second is a measured boot. If you measure each component of the boot process into the TPM, and if you use these measurements to control access to a secret that allows the laptop to prove that it's trustworthy (such as Joanna Rutkowska's Anti Evil Maid or my variant on the theme), an attacker can compromise the boot process but you'll know that they've done so before you start typing.

So, how do current operating systems stack up here?

Windows: Supports UEFI Secure Boot in a meaningful way. Supports measured boot, but provides no mechanism for the system to attest that it hasn't been compromised. Good, but not perfect.

Linux: Supports UEFI Secure Boot[1], but doesn't verify signatures on the initrd[2]. This means that attacks such as Evil Abigail are still possible. Measured boot isn't in a good state, but it's possible to incorporate with a bunch of manual work. Vulnerable out of the box, but can be configured to be better than Windows.

Apple: Ha. Snare talked about attacking the Apple boot process in 2012 - basically everything he described then is still possible. Apple recently hired the people behind Legbacore, so there's hope - but right now all shipping Apple hardware has no firmware support for UEFI Secure Boot and no TPM. This makes it impossible to provide any kind of boot attestation, and there's no real way you can verify that your system hasn't been compromised.

Now, to be fair, there's attacks that even Windows and properly configured Linux will still be vulnerable to. Firmware defects that permit modification of System Management Mode code can still be used to circumvent these protections, and the Management Engine is in a position to just do whatever it wants and fuck all of you. But that's really not an excuse to just ignore everything else. Improving the current state of boot security makes it more difficult for adversaries to compromise a system, and if we ever do get to the point of systems which aren't running any hidden proprietary code we'll still need this functionality. It's worth doing, and it's worth doing now.

[1] Well, except Ubuntu's signed bootloader will happily boot unsigned kernels which kind of defeats the entire point of the exercise
[2] Initrds are built on the local machine, so we can't just ship signed images

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2016-01-01 00:48:32 from Matthew Garrett

GPL enforcement is a social good

The Software Freedom Conservancy is currently running a fundraising program in an attempt to raise enough money to continue funding GPL compliance work. If they don't gain enough supporters, the majority of their compliance work will cease. And, since SFC are pretty much the only group currently actively involved in performing GPL compliance work, that basically means that there will be nobody working to ensure that users have the rights that copyright holders chose to give them.

Why does this matter? More people are using GPLed software than at any point in history. Hundreds of millions of Android devices were sold this year, all including GPLed code. An unknowably vast number of IoT devices run Linux. Cameras, Blu Ray players, TVs, light switches, coffee machines. Software running in places that we would never have previously imagined. And much of it abandoned immediately after shipping, gently rotting, exposing an increasingly large number of widely known security vulnerabilities to an increasingly hostile internet. Devices that become useless because of protocol updates. Toys that have a "Guaranteed to work until" date, and then suddenly Barbie goes dead and you're forced to have an unexpected conversation about API mortality with your 5-year old child.

We can't fix all of these things. Many of these devices have important functionality locked inside proprietary components, released under licenses that grant no permission for people to examine or improve them. But there are many that we can. Millions of devices are running modern and secure versions of Android despite being abandoned by their manufacturers, purely because the vendor released appropriate source code and a community grew up to maintain it. But this can only happen when the vendor plays by the rules.

Vendors who don't release their code remove that freedom from their users, and the weapons users have to fight against that are limited. Most users hold no copyright over the software in the device and are unable to take direct action themselves. A vendor's failure to comply dooms them to having to choose between buying a new device in 12 months or no longer receiving security updates. When yet more examples of vendor-supplied malware are discovered, it's more difficult to produce new builds without them. The utility of the devices that the user purchased is curtailed significantly.

The Software Freedom Conservancy is the only organisation actively fighting against this, and if they're forced to give up their enforcement work the pressure on vendors to comply with the GPL will be reduced even further. If we want users to control their devices, to be able to obtain security updates even after the vendor has given up, we need to keep that pressure up. Supporting the SFC's work has a real impact on the security of the internet and people's lives. Please consider giving them money.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-12-21 20:00:48 from Matthew Garrett

What is hacker culture?

Eric Raymond, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar (an important work describing the effectiveness of open collaboration and development), recently wrote a piece calling for "Social Justice Warriors" to be ejected from the hacker community. The primary thrust of his argument is that by calling for a removal of the "cult of meritocracy", these SJWs are attacking the central aspect of hacker culture - that the quality of code is all that matters.

This argument is simply wrong.

Eric's been involved in software development for a long time. In that time he's seen a number of significant changes. We've gone from computers being the playthings of the privileged few to being nearly ubiquitous. We've moved from the internet being something you found in universities to something you carry around in your pocket. You can now own a computer whose CPU executes only free software from the moment you press the power button. And, as Eric wrote almost 20 years ago, we've identified that the "Bazaar" model of open collaborative development works better than the "Cathedral" model of closed centralised development.

These are huge shifts in how computers are used, how available they are, how important they are in people's lives, and, as a consequence, how we develop software. It's not a surprise that the rise of Linux and the victory of the bazaar model coincided with internet access becoming more widely available. As the potential pool of developers grew larger, development methods had to be altered. It was no longer possible to insist that somebody spend a significant period of time winning the trust of the core developers before being permitted to give feedback on code. Communities had to change in order to accept these offers of work, and the communities were better for that change.

The increasing ubiquity of computing has had another outcome. People are much more aware of the role of computing in their lives. They are more likely to understand how proprietary software can restrict them, how not having the freedom to share software can impair people's lives, how not being able to involve themselves in software development means software doesn't meet their needs. The largest triumph of free software has not been amongst people from a traditional software development background - it's been the fact that we've grown our communities to include people from a huge number of different walks of life. Free software has helped bring computing to underserved populations all over the world. It's aided circumvention of censorship. It's inspired people who would never have considered software development as something they could be involved in to develop entire careers in the field. We will not win because we are better developers. We will win because our software meets the needs of many more people, needs the proprietary software industry either can not or will not satisfy. We will win because our software is shaped not only by people who have a university degree and a six figure salary in San Francisco, but because our contributors include people whose native language is spoken by so few people that proprietary operating system vendors won't support it, people who live in a heavily censored regime and rely on free software for free communication, people who rely on free software because they can't otherwise afford the tools they would need to participate in development.

In other words, we will win because free software is accessible to more of society than proprietary software. And for that to be true, it must be possible for our communities to be accessible to anybody who can contribute, regardless of their background.

Up until this point, I don't think I've made any controversial claims. In fact, I suspect that Eric would agree. He would argue that because hacker culture defines itself through the quality of contributions, the background of the contributor is irrelevant. On the internet, nobody knows that you're contributing from a basement in an active warzone, or from a refuge shelter after escaping an abusive relationship, or with the aid of assistive technology. If you can write the code, you can participate.

Of course, this kind of viewpoint is overly naive. Humans are wonderful at noticing indications of "otherness". Eric even wrote about his struggle to stop having a viscerally negative reaction to people of a particular race. This happened within the past few years, so before then we can assume that he was less aware of the issue. If Eric received a patch from someone whose name indicated membership of this group, would there have been part of his subconscious that reacted negatively? Would he have rationalised this into a more critical analysis of the patch, increasing the probability of rejection? We don't know, and it's unlikely that Eric does either.

Hacker culture has long been concerned with good design, and a core concept of good design is that code should fail safe - ie, if something unexpected happens or an assumption turns out to be untrue, the desirable outcome is the one that does least harm. A command that fails to receive a filename as an argument shouldn't assume that it should modify all files. A network transfer that fails a checksum shouldn't be permitted to overwrite the existing data. An authentication server that receives an unexpected error shouldn't default to granting access. And a development process that may be subject to unconscious bias should have processes in place that make it less likely that said bias will result in the rejection of useful contributions.

When people criticise meritocracy, they're not criticising the concept of treating contributions based on their merit. They're criticising the idea that humans are sufficiently self-aware that they will be able to identify and reject every subconscious prejudice that will affect their treatment of others. It's not a criticism of a desirable goal, it's a criticism of a flawed implementation. There's evidence that organisations that claim to embody meritocratic principles are more likely to reward men than women even when everything else is equal. The "cult of meritocracy" isn't the belief that meritocracy is a good thing, it's the belief that a project founded on meritocracy will automatically be free of bias.

Projects like the Contributor Covenant that Eric finds so objectionable exist to help create processes that (at least partially) compensate for our flaws. Review of our processes to determine whether we're making poor social decisions is just as important as review of our code to determine whether we're making poor technical decisions. Just as the bazaar overtook the cathedral by making it easier for developers to be involved, inclusive communities will overtake "pure meritocracies" because, in the long run, these communities will produce better output - not just in terms of the quality of the code, but also in terms of the ability of the project to meet the needs of a wider range of people.

The fight between the cathedral and the bazaar came from people who were outside the cathedral. Those fighting against the assumption that meritocracies work may be outside what Eric considers to be hacker culture, but they're already part of our communities, already making contributions to our projects, already bringing free software to more people than ever before. This time it's Eric building a cathedral and decrying the decadent hordes in their bazaar, Eric who's failed to notice the shift in the culture that surrounds him. And, like those who continued building their cathedrals in the 90s, it's Eric who's now irrelevant to hacker culture.

(Edited to add: for two quite different perspectives on why Eric's wrong, see Tim's and Coraline's posts)

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-11-29 18:43:02 from Matthew Garrett

If it's not practical to redistribute free software, it's not free software in practice

I've previously written about Canonical's obnoxious IP policy and how Mark Shuttleworth admits it's deliberately vague. After spending some time discussing specific examples with Canonical, I've been explicitly told that while Canonical will gladly give me a cost-free trademark license permitting me to redistribute unmodified Ubuntu binaries, they will not tell me what Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries actually means.

Why does this matter? The free software definition requires that you be able to redistribute software to other people in either unmodified or modified form without needing to ask for permission first. This makes it clear that Ubuntu itself isn't free software - distributing the individual binary packages without permission is forbidden, even if they wouldn't contain any infringing trademarks[1]. This is obnoxious, but not inherently toxic. The source packages for Ubuntu could still be free software, making it fairly straightforward to build a free software equivalent.

Unfortunately, while true in theory, this isn't true in practice. The issue here is the apparently simple phrase you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code. "Trademarks" is defined later as being the words "Ubuntu", "Kubuntu", "Juju", "Landscape", "Edubuntu" and "Xubuntu" in either textual or logo form. The naive interpretation of this is that you have to remove trademarks where they'd be infringing - for instance, shipping the Ubuntu bootsplash as part of a modified product would almost certainly be clear trademark infringement, so you shouldn't do that. But that's not what the policy actually says. It insists that all trademarks be removed, whether they would embody an infringement or not. If a README says "To build this software under Ubuntu, install the following packages", a literal reading of Canonical's policy would require you to remove or replace the word "Ubuntu" even though failing to do so wouldn't be a trademark infringement. If an @ubuntu.com email address is present in a changelog, you'd have to change it. You wouldn't be able to ship the juju-core package without renaming it and the application within. If this is what the policy means, it's so impractical to be able to rebuild Ubuntu that it's not free software in any meaningful way.

This seems like a pretty ludicrous interpretation, but it's one that Canonical refuse to explicitly rule out. Compare this to Red Hat's requirements around Fedora - if you replace the fedora-logos, fedora-release and fedora-release-notes packages with your own content, you're good. A policy like this satisfies the concerns that Dustin raised over people misrepresenting their products, but still makes it easy for users to distribute modified code to other users. There's nothing whatsoever stopping Canonical from adopting a similarly unambiguous policy.

Mark has repeatedly asserted that attempts to raise this issue are mere FUD, but he won't answer you if you ask him direct questions about this policy and will insist that it's necessary to protect Ubuntu's brand. The reality is that if Debian had had an identical policy in 2004, Ubuntu wouldn't exist. The effort required to strip all Debian trademarks from the source packages would have been immense[2], and this would have had to be repeated for every release. While this policy is in place, nobody's going to be able to take Ubuntu and build something better. It's grotesquely hypocritical, especially when the Ubuntu website still talks about their belief that people should be able to distribute modifications without licensing fees.

All that's required for Canonical to deal with this problem is to follow Fedora's lead and isolate their trademarks in a small set of packages, then tell users that those packages must be replaced if distributing a modified version of Ubuntu. If they're serious about this being a branding issue, they'll do it. And if I'm right that the policy is deliberately obfuscated so Canonical can encourage people to buy licenses, they won't. It's easy for them to prove me wrong, and I'll be delighted if they do. Let's see what happens.

[1] The policy is quite clear on this. If you want to distribute something other than an unmodified Ubuntu image, you have two choices:

  1. Gain approval or certification from Canonical
  2. Remove all trademarks and recompile the source code
Note that option 2 requires you to rebuild even if there are no trademarks to remove.

[2] Especially when every source package contains a directory called "debian"…

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-11-19 22:16:30 from Matthew Garrett

Why improving kernel security is important

The Washington Post published an article today which describes the ongoing tension between the security community and Linux kernel developers. This has been roundly denounced as FUD, with Rob Graham going so far as to claim that nobody ever attacks the kernel.

Unfortunately he's entirely and demonstrably wrong, it's not FUD and the state of security in the kernel is currently far short of where it should be.

An example. Recent versions of Android use SELinux to confine applications. Even if you have full control over an application running on Android, the SELinux rules make it very difficult to do anything especially user-hostile. Hacking Team, the GPL-violating Italian company who sells surveillance software to human rights abusers, found that this impeded their ability to drop their spyware onto targets' devices. So they took advantage of the fact that many Android devices shipped a kernel with a flawed copy_from_user() implementation that allowed them to copy arbitrary userspace data over arbitrary kernel code, thus allowing them to disable SELinux.

If we could trust userspace applications, we wouldn't need SELinux. But we assume that userspace code may be buggy, misconfigured or actively hostile, and we use technologies such as SELinux or AppArmor to restrict its behaviour. There's simply too much userspace code for us to guarantee that it's all correct, so we do our best to prevent it from doing harm anyway.

This is significantly less true in the kernel. The model up until now has largely been "Fix security bugs as we find them", an approach that fails on two levels:

1) Once we find them and fix them, there's still a window between the fixed version being available and it actually being deployed
2) The forces of good may not be the first ones to find them

This reactive approach is fine for a world where it's possible to push out software updates without having to perform extensive testing first, a world where the only people hunting for interesting kernel vulnerabilities are nice people. This isn't that world, and this approach isn't fine.

Just as features like SELinux allow us to reduce the harm that can occur if a new userspace vulnerability is found, we can add features to the kernel that make it more difficult (or impossible) for attackers to turn a kernel bug into an exploitable vulnerability. The number of people using Linux systems is increasing every day, and many of these users depend on the security of these systems in critical ways. It's vital that we do what we can to avoid their trust being misplaced.

Many useful mitigation features already exist in the Grsecurity patchset, but a combination of technical disagreements around certain features, personality conflicts and an apparent lack of enthusiasm on the side of upstream kernel developers has resulted in almost none of it landing in the kernels that most people use. Kees Cook has proposed a new project to start making a more concerted effort to migrate components of Grsecurity to upstream. If you rely on the kernel being a secure component, either because you ship a product based on it or because you use it yourself, you should probably be doing what you can to support this.

Microsoft received entirely justifiable criticism for the terrible state of security on their platform. They responded by introducing cutting-edge security features across the OS, including the kernel. Accusing anyone who says we need to do the same of spreading FUD is risking free software being sidelined in favour of proprietary software providing more real-world security. That doesn't seem like a good outcome.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-11-06 09:19:07 from Matthew Garrett

Going my own way

Reaction to Sarah's post about leaving the kernel community was a mixture of terrible and touching, but it's still one of those things that almost certainly won't end up making any kind of significant difference. Linus has made it pretty clear that he's fine with the way he behaves, and nobody's going to depose him. That's unfortunate, because earlier today I was sitting in a presentation at Linuxcon and remembering how much I love the technical side of kernel development. "Remembering" is a deliberate choice of word - it's been increasingly difficult to remember that, because instead I remember having to deal with interminable arguments over the naming of an interface because Linus has an undying hatred of BSD securelevel, or having my name forever associated with the deepthroating of Microsoft because Linus couldn't be bothered asking questions about the reasoning behind a design before trashing it.

In the end it's a mixture of just being tired of dealing with the crap associated with Linux development and realising that by continuing to put up with it I'm tacitly encouraging its continuation, but I can't be bothered any more. And, thanks to the magic of free software, it turns out that I can avoid putting up with the bullshit in the kernel community and get to work on the things I'm interested in doing. So here's a kernel tree with patches that implement a BSD-style securelevel interface. Over time it'll pick up some of the power management code I'm still working on, and we'll see where it goes from there. But, until there's a significant shift in community norms on LKML, I'll only be there when I'm being paid to be there. And that's improved my mood immeasurably.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-10-06 13:18:27 from Matthew Garrett

Filling in the holes in Linux boot chain measurement, and the TPM measurement log

When I wrote about TPM attestation via 2FA, I mentioned that you needed a bootloader that actually performed measurement. I've now written some patches for Shim and Grub that do so.

The Shim code does a couple of things. The obvious one is to measure the second-stage bootloader into PCR 9. The perhaps less expected one is to measure the contents of the MokList and MokSBState UEFI variables into PCR 14. This means that if you're happy simply running a system with your own set of signing keys and just want to ensure that your secure boot configuration hasn't been compromised, you can simply seal to PCR 7 (which will contain the UEFI Secure Boot state as defined by the UEFI spec) and PCR 14 (which will contain the additional state used by Shim) and ignore all the others.

The grub code is a little more complicated because there's more ways to get it to execute code. Right now I've gone for a fairly extreme implementation. On BIOS systems, the grub stage 1 and 2 will be measured into PCR 9[1]. That's the only BIOS-specific part of things. From then on, any grub modules that are loaded will also be measured into PCR 9. The full kernel image will be measured into PCR10, and the full initramfs will be measured into PCR11. The command line passed to the kernel is in PCR12. Finally, each command executed by grub (including those in the config file) is measured into PCR 13.

That's quite a lot of measurement, and there are probably fairly reasonable circumstances under which you won't want to pay attention to all of those PCRs. But you've probably also noticed that several different things may be measured into the same PCR, and that makes it more difficult to figure out what's going on. Thankfully, the spec designers have a solution to this in the form of the TPM measurement log.

Rather than merely extending a PCR with a new hash, software can extend the measurement log at the same time. This is stored outside the TPM and so isn't directly cryptographically protected. In the simplest form, it contains a hash and some form of description of the event associated with that hash. If you replay those hashes you should end up with the same value that's in the TPM, so for attestation purposes you can perform that verification and then merely check that specific log values you care about are correct. This makes it possible to have a system perform an attestation to a remote server that contains a full list of the grub commands that it ran and for that server to make its attestation decision based on a subset of those.

No promises as yet about PCR allocation being final or these patches ever going anywhere in their current form, but it seems reasonable to get them out there so people can play. Let me know if you end up using them!

[1] The code for this is derived from the old Trusted Grub patchset, by way of Sirrix AG's Trusted Grub 2 tree.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-09-24 01:21:04 from Matthew Garrett

The Internet of Incompatible Things

I have an Amazon Echo. I also have a LIFX Smart Bulb. The Echo can integrate with Philips Hue devices, letting you control your lights by voice. It has no integration with LIFX. Worse, the Echo developer program is fairly limited - while the device's built in code supports communicating with devices on your local network, the third party developer interface only allows you to make calls to remote sites[1]. It seemed like I was going to have to put up with either controlling my bedroom light by phone or actually getting out of bed to hit the switch.

Then I found this article describing the implementation of a bridge between the Echo and Belkin Wemo switches, cunningly called Fauxmo. The Echo already supports controlling Wemo switches, and the code in question simply implements enough of the Wemo API to convince the Echo that there's a bunch of Wemo switches on your network. When the Echo sends a command to them asking them to turn on or off, the code executes an arbitrary callback that integrates with whatever API you want.

This seemed like a good starting point. There's a free implementation of the LIFX bulb API called Lazylights, and with a quick bit of hacking I could use the Echo to turn my bulb on or off. But the Echo's Hue support also allows dimming of lights, and that seemed like a nice feature to have. Tcpdump showed that asking the Echo to look for Hue devices resulted in similar UPnP discovery requests to it looking for Wemo devices, so extending the Fauxmo code seemed plausible. I signed up for the Philips developer program and then discovered that the terms and conditions explicitly forbade using any information on their site to implement any kind of Hue-compatible endpoint. So that was out. Thankfully enough people have written their own Hue code at various points that I could figure out enough of the protocol by searching Github instead, and now I have a branch of Fauxmo that supports searching for LIFX bulbs and presenting them as Hues[2].

Running this on a machine on my local network is enough to keep the Echo happy, and I can now dim my bedroom light in addition to turning it on or off. But it demonstrates a somewhat awkward situation. Right now vendors have no real incentive to offer any kind of compatibility with each other. Instead they're all trying to define their own ecosystems with their own incompatible protocols with the aim of forcing users to continue buying from them. Worse, they attempt to restrict developers from implementing any kind of compatibility layers. The inevitable outcome is going to be either stacks of discarded devices speaking abandoned protocols or a cottage industry of developers writing bridge code and trying to avoid DMCA takedowns.

The dystopian future we're heading towards isn't Gibsonian giant megacorporations engaging in physical warfare, it's one where buying a new toaster means replacing all your lightbulbs or discovering that the code making your home alarm system work is now considered a copyright infringement. Is there a market where I can invest in IP lawyers?

[1] It also requires an additional phrase at the beginning of a request to indicate which third party app you want your query to go to, so it's much more clumsy to make those requests compared to using a built-in app.
[2] I only have one bulb, so as yet I haven't added any support for groups.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-09-20 21:22:20 from Matthew Garrett

Working with the kernel keyring

The Linux kernel keyring is effectively a mechanism to allow shoving blobs of data into the kernel and then setting access controls on them. It's convenient for a couple of reasons: the first is that these blobs are available to the kernel itself (so it can use them for things like NFSv4 authentication or module signing keys), and the second is that once they're locked down there's no way for even root to modify them.

But there's a corner case that can be somewhat confusing here, and it's one that I managed to crash into multiple times when I was implementing some code that works with this. Keys can be "possessed" by a process, and have permissions that are granted to the possessor orthogonally to any permissions granted to the user or group that owns the key. This is important because it allows for the creation of keyrings that are only visible to specific processes - if my userspace keyring manager is using the kernel keyring as a backing store for decrypted material, I don't want any arbitrary process running as me to be able to obtain those keys[1]. As described in keyrings(7), keyrings exist at the session, process and thread levels of granularity.

This is absolutely fine in the normal case, but gets confusing when you start using sudo. sudo by default doesn't create a new login session - when you're working with sudo, you're still working with key posession that's tied to the original user. This makes sense when you consider that you often want applications you run with sudo to have access to the keys that you own, but it becomes a pain when you're trying to work with keys that need to be accessible to a user no matter whether that user owns the login session or not.

I spent a while talking to David Howells about this and he explained the easiest way to handle this. If you do something like the following:
$ sudo keyctl add user testkey testdata @u
a new key will be created and added to UID 0's user keyring (indicated by @u). This is possible because the keyring defaults to 0x3f3f0000 permissions, giving both the possessor and the user read/write access to the keyring. But if you then try to do something like:
$ sudo keyctl setperm 678913344 0x3f3f0000
where 678913344 is the ID of the key we created in the previous command, you'll get permission denied. This is because the default permissions on a key are 0x3f010000, meaning that the possessor has permission to do anything to the key but the user only has permission to view its attributes. The cause of this confusion is that although we have permission to write to UID 0's keyring (because the permissions are 0x3f3f0000), we don't possess it - the only permissions we have for this key are the user ones, and the default state for user permissions on new keys only gives us permission to view the attributes, not change them.

But! There's a way around this. If we instead do:
$ sudo keyctl add user testkey testdata @s
then the key is added to the current session keyring (@s). Because the session keyring belongs to us, we possess any keys within it and so we have permission to modify the permissions further. We can then do:
$ sudo keyctl setperm 678913344 0x3f3f0000
and it works. Hurrah! Except that if we log in as root, we'll be part of another session and won't be able to see that key. Boo. So, after setting the permissions, we should:
$ sudo keyctl link 678913344 @u
which ties it to UID 0's user keyring. Someone who logs in as root will then be able to see the key, as will any processes running as root via sudo. But we probably also want to remove it from the unprivileged user's session keyring, because that's readable/writable by the unprivileged user - they'd be able to revoke the key from underneath us!
$ sudo keyctl unlink 678913344 @s
will achieve this, and now the key is configured appropriately - UID 0 can read, modify and delete the key, other users can't.

This is part of our ongoing work at CoreOS to make rkt more secure. Moving the signing keys into the kernel is the first step towards rkt no longer having to trust the local writable filesystem[2]. Once keys have been enrolled the keyring can be locked down - rkt will then refuse to run any images unless they're signed with one of these keys, and even root will be unable to alter them.

[1] (obviously it should also be impossible to ptrace() my userspace keyring manager)
[2] Part of our Secure Boot work has been the integration of dm-verity into CoreOS. Once deployed this will mean that the /usr partition is cryptographically verified by the kernel at runtime, making it impossible for anybody to modify it underneath the kernel. / remains writable in order to permit local configuration and to act as a data store, and right now rkt stores its trusted keys there.

comment count unavailable comments

Syndicated 2015-08-31 17:18:52 from Matthew Garrett

426 older entries...

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!