| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 01/17/2014 11:25 PM, Samuel Damashek wrote: |
| 5 |
> At the request of creffett, I created a Proof of Concept for |
| 6 |
> glksa-check, which allows for glksa XML files to define Kernel |
| 7 |
> security vulnerabilities. Please realize that this is a Proof of |
| 8 |
> Concept, and that the interface is not the most user-friendly. The |
| 9 |
> code can definitely be improved as well. To test the program, |
| 10 |
> untar the files and copy the glksa dir to /usr/portage/metadata/. |
| 11 |
> At the moment, the script requires you to have /proc/config.gz |
| 12 |
> enabled in your kernel to read your running config options. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I have two XML files currently defined (still using the glsa.dtd |
| 15 |
> schema); one that is an actual vulnerability and one that is simply |
| 16 |
> a control that triggers on X86. To test the program, run it with |
| 17 |
> the -l option. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> You can download the files at |
| 20 |
> http://sdamashek.me/files/glksa.tar.gz (not sure if the mailing |
| 21 |
> lists let you attach tarballs). There is definitely a lot to be |
| 22 |
> improved about the application; this is just an idea for how to |
| 23 |
> handle notifying users about Kernel vulnerabilities that affect |
| 24 |
> their system. They would be released just like glsas. What are the |
| 25 |
> list's opinions on this? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- Samuel Damashek |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
@security team: yes, I asked sdamashek to look into kernel bug |
| 30 |
handling since we really don't do anything with it right now, and |
| 31 |
suggested that he make a tool to check whether a kernel is vulnerable |
| 32 |
(since it's more configuration-specific than a standard GLSA). As a |
| 33 |
first step, I like it. It will need some cleaning up, of course, and |
| 34 |
we will need to set up the framework to publish these and the |
| 35 |
necessary integration into gentoolkit, but thank you for starting work |
| 36 |
on this. As far as the release process goes, I think this could be |
| 37 |
fairly easily automated--dump the CVE into the description, have |
| 38 |
someone fill in the affected versions, kernel options, and type, |
| 39 |
commit and send, no real need for peer review. I'm undecided as to |
| 40 |
whether this is worth a new dtd or if we can just hack around the |
| 41 |
existing glsa dtd, I think it might be worth a new one just for |
| 42 |
simplicity. Of course, I'd like to hear the opinions of the more |
| 43 |
senior members of security on what is needed to actually get this |
| 44 |
deployable. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Chris Reffett |
| 47 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 48 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 49 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
iKYEARECAGYFAlLbN15fFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl |
| 52 |
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM2NzU5RjUyMDczREJDQkVDQTBDRkE1NERC |
| 53 |
Nzk1QThBNDI2MTgzNTQACgkQ23laikJhg1TP6gCggp61cehAy0iursG8ZMIaOiGX |
| 54 |
mswAni4Vr6JHpZCw92zCNQ+X5M6k4xJL |
| 55 |
=8tqg |
| 56 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives