With regard to the lates Bash Shock, I wonder does it make sense to confine Bash with AppArmor after all? I think to create a dedicated profile solely for Bash does not make sense, because in general you want to be able to access everything with Bash, right? If an app wants to access Bash I envoke /bin/bash with the ix parameter, this way Bash inherits the app´s profile. Is this the only best way to confine Bash? Or does a dedicated profile make sense? Thanks
On 2014-10-03 22:42, pinguin74 wrote:
With regard to the lates Bash Shock, I wonder does it make sense to confine Bash with AppArmor after all?
No. It is used by everything, needs access everywhere. You can confine the parent and its children, when you know in advance what the parent is going to do for months to come. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Am 03.10.2014 um 23:23 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
On 2014-10-03 22:42, pinguin74 wrote:
With regard to the lates Bash Shock, I wonder does it make sense to confine Bash with AppArmor after all?
No. It is used by everything, needs access everywhere.
You can confine the parent and its children, when you know in advance what the parent is going to do for months to come.
I think with aa-notify you can learn quickly if the profile needs adjustment, so it should work if Bash inherits the main profile. I tried this with clamscan, Thunderbird and Firefox, they all invoke bash. And never had complaints bash couldn´t access something! Best regards
On 2014-10-03 23:45, pinguin74 wrote:
Am 03.10.2014 um 23:23 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
I tried this with clamscan, Thunderbird and Firefox, they all invoke bash. And never had complaints bash couldn´t access something!
But of course. You are not setting a profile for bash, but for clamscan, Thunderbird and Firefox. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Hello, Am Freitag, 3. Oktober 2014 schrieb pinguin74:
With regard to the lates Bash Shock, I wonder does it make sense to confine Bash with AppArmor after all?
I think to create a dedicated profile solely for Bash does not make sense, because in general you want to be able to access everything with Bash, right?
Right.
If an app wants to access Bash I envoke /bin/bash with the ix parameter, this way Bash inherits the app´s profile. Is this the only best way to confine Bash? Or does a dedicated profile make sense?
You can use a child profile (Cx) if you want to give bash different permissions than the main profile. If you are really paranoid, you can use another child profile for binaries executed by the Cx'd bash. Note that aa-logprof won't offer (C)hild when you are already in a child profile, but you can use (N)amed and enter the wanted child profile, like /bin/foo///bin/bar if your main profile is /bin/foo and you want a child profile for /bin/bar. Regards, Christian Boltz PS: Speaking about shellshock - if a windows user points fingers at Linux because of shellshock, point him to https://plus.google.com/117024231055768477646/posts/AhBgNjsVASa ;-) -- [Windows remote herunterfahren] einfach ein Nichtgepatchtes Windows verwenden und einen der tausen Viren, die letztes Jahr die Maschinen runter gefahren haben ;) [Andreas Loesch in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-security+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-security+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Christian Boltz -
pinguin74