Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: ELF Executable Signing/Verification Comes For Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,465

    Default ELF Executable Signing/Verification Comes For Linux

    Phoronix: ELF Executable Signing/Verification Comes For Linux

    Vivek Goyal of Red Hat has published the initial Linux patches for implementing ELF executable signing and verification. This support is similar to Linux kernel module signature verification and is necessitated with the arrival of SecureBoot...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI3NTY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Jailbreak your Linux OS?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,935

    Default Other OS already had this

    Other operating systems already had this feature for many years now.

    It would be if the distribution signed all their compiled binaries.
    Then you can verify the integrity of the system by searching for binaries that are not signed by the distribution.

    A tool that lists all non-signed binaries, and all non-distribution signed binaries.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    It would be if the distribution signed all their compiled binaries.
    Then you can verify the integrity of the system by searching for binaries that are not signed by the distribution.

    A tool that lists all non-signed binaries, and all non-distribution signed binaries.
    all RPM based distributions have got that ability out-of-the-box. or maybe not exactly that- rpm -V doesn't check is a binary signed (or not), but it checks the checksum of package- if binary was modified (stripped etc), than it will notify you.
    Making the list of all executables, than comparing it to the listed packages will let you know if they are executables that were not installed via rpm... you can always of course check their signatures etc.
    So, in short- thing like that is already possible.

    But ad rem- i'd like to be able to, let say, automatically run un-signed executables in SELinux's sandbox. Of course- I should be able to either disable it, or to add my own signature to the signature-database.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Then you can verify the integrity of the system by searching for binaries that are not signed by the distribution.
    But in order to have a system with verifiable integrity, you'll also need to disable the root user (he can bypass checks), third party kernel modules (you can't sign them with the distribution's key when you build them), scripts (they can't be signed) or their interpreters (python, java, php... bash...).

    I think that this feature is more useful for users to be sure of the author of binaries rather than as a lock-down measure.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    564

    Default

    So exist an key management or something like that? "One Key to Rule them all" is not an great idea and i would like it that Software Vendors can sign there own Binary. Our administrators have only to allow that Vendor and we don't have to Sign all binary by ourself.

    Under Windows its easy to do that and we use this Feature with our own Workstations. You can only execute programs that are signed from Vendors that are in an white list.
    Last edited by Nille; 01-16-2013 at 06:10 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Since the content is protected by license (GPL) and not technical obfuscation, this is a very welcomed feature.
    Even on regular systems it makes sense as it will provide protection against bitrot and damage, even before the binary is executed.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Yet another attempt to lock down our own computers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by szymon_g View Post
    all RPM based distributions have got that ability out-of-the-box. or maybe not exactly that- rpm -V doesn't check is a binary signed (or not), but it checks the checksum of package- if binary was modified (stripped etc), than it will notify you.
    Making the list of all executables, than comparing it to the listed packages will let you know if they are executables that were not installed via rpm... you can always of course check their signatures etc.
    So, in short- thing like that is already possible.

    But ad rem- i'd like to be able to, let say, automatically run un-signed executables in SELinux's sandbox. Of course- I should be able to either disable it, or to add my own signature to the signature-database.
    Sweet!
    I wish these feature were available on .deb / apt-based distributions too.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Sweet!
    I wish these feature were available on .deb / apt-based distributions too.
    It's there, it's called debsums. Don't know if you need to install it seperately.

    But these methods are not for data integrity. MD5 has collisions and so two different executables can be created with the same checksum.

    This technology is about a checksum inside the programs 'physical' file which is probably signed/hashed/encrypted by some certificate (or key or whatever). Hence, it's possible to use the public (root) certificates to check this.

    I find these integrity mechanisms flawed, as a vulnerable signed executable is still vulnerable. It gives a false sense of security. One might argue that you are reducing the attack surface but I would say that is not the case. Say, you exploit Java, which is relatively easy, and then root exploit into Linux. Simply place a python script and make it start at boot with a new entry into a boot script (both of which are not covered by this mechanism) and you are good to go.

    And did I mention the fallacy's of Turktrust and Diginotar? Perfectly signed binaries ... now with trojans!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •