mailing list of musl libc
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Harald Becker <ralda@gmx.de>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Cc: Matt Johnston <matt@ucc.asn.au>
Subject: Re: Re: Security advisory for musl libc - stack-based buffer overflow in ipv6 literal parsing [CVE-2015-1817]
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:27:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55328604.4000705@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150418155845.GH6817@brightrain.aerifal.cx>

Hi !

@Rich: I still get DNS error (Mozilla Thunderbird) for dalias@libc.org, 
when tying to send mail :(

On 18.04.2015 17:58, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 05:49:51PM +0200, Harald Becker wrote:
>> On 18.04.2015 17:25, Rich Felker wrote:
>>>> The server hostkey will remain in process memory since it's
>>>> required for rekeying - not as bad as root code execution
>>>> though.
>>>
>>> Ugly. I don't see how this can be solved without a more advanced
>>> privsep model. I agree it's lower-severity though.
>>
>> IMO you may put the host keys in a file readable (not writable)
>> with a dropbear group, and only using that group for dropbear (no
>> other users or programs using that group). So you may read the keys
>> even if not root, if you add this dropbear group to setgroups (not
>> setgid) before dropping root privileges.
>
> The key is already in memory.

As far as I understand it, the question was, *not to have* the key
hanging around in memory, but still have access without requirement to
keep root privileges. My suggestion is to solve this, with a very simple
and easy to implement solution. I consider it a slight increased
security, as the dropbear process can drop root privileges (and has to
do so), but still has access to the host keys.


> A design like the above would not significantly improve security
> (except for heartbleed type issues); it would be just like the
> situation now where the key is already in memory.

ACK, as told it's intention is a simple solution to give dropbear access
to the host keys without letting them hang in memory all the time.


> To make it more secure, the session process would not have any access
> to the key and would have to communicate with an existing privileged
> process to rekey.

ACK, much better, but this would need major restructuring, wouldn't it?

So consider my suggestion a simpler to implement solution, in between 
having full root privileges or hanging keys in memory, and an external 
process to do the rekey steps (in addition: with the possibility to let 
that process use the dropbear group and not root to access keys - even 
better than let that process hang around as root)

Harald


  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-18 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-17 13:10 Matt Johnston
2015-04-17 17:23 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-17 18:03   ` Rich Felker
2015-04-17 18:09     ` Solar Designer
2015-04-18 13:32       ` Matt Johnston
2015-04-18 15:25         ` Rich Felker
2015-04-18 15:49           ` Harald Becker
2015-04-18 15:58             ` Rich Felker
2015-04-18 16:27               ` Harald Becker [this message]
2015-04-18 16:37                 ` Rich Felker
2015-04-18 17:07                   ` Harald Becker
2015-04-18 18:27                     ` Laurent Bercot
2015-04-18 18:47                       ` Harald Becker
2015-04-18 18:13                   ` Harald Becker
2015-04-18 19:56                     ` Rich Felker
2015-04-18 21:02                       ` Laurent Bercot
2015-04-19  3:44                         ` Rich Felker
2015-04-20 10:17                           ` Harald Becker
2015-04-20 11:20                             ` Kurt H Maier
2015-04-20 11:35                               ` Harald Becker
2015-04-20 11:50                                 ` Harald Becker
2015-04-20 14:14                                 ` Kurt H Maier
2015-04-20 14:21                                   ` Harald Becker
2015-04-18 18:25                   ` Harald Becker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=55328604.4000705@gmx.de \
    --to=ralda@gmx.de \
    --cc=matt@ucc.asn.au \
    --cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).