A few days ago a vulnerability was reported in the SELinux sandbox user space utility. The utility is part of the policycoreutils package. Luckily, Gentoo's sys-apps/policycoreutils package is not vulnerable - and not because we were clairvoyant about this issue, but because we don't ship this utility.

What is the SELinux sandbox?

The SELinux sandbox utility, aptly named sandbox, is a simple C application which executes its arguments, but only after ensuring that the task it launches is going to run in the sandbox_t domain.

This domain is specifically crafted to allow applications most standard privileges needed for interacting with the user (so that the user can of course still use the application) but removes many permissions that might be abused to either obtain information from the system, or use to try and exploit vulnerabilities to gain more privileges. It also hides a number of resources on the system through namespaces.

It was developed in 2009 for Fedora and Red Hat. Given the necessary SELinux policy support though, it was usable on other distributions as well, and thus became part of the SELinux user space itself.

What is the vulnerability about?

The SELinux sandbox utility used an execution approach that did not shield off the users' terminal access sufficiently. In the POC post we notice that characters could be sent to the terminal through the ioctl() function (which executes the ioctl system call used for input/output operations against devices) which are eventually executed when the application finishes.

That's bad of course. Hence the CVE-2016-7545 registration, and of course also a possible fix has been committed upstream.

Why isn't Gentoo vulnerable / shipping with SELinux sandbox?

There's some history involved why Gentoo does not ship the SELinux sandbox (anymore).

First of all, Gentoo already has a command that is called sandbox, installed through the sys-apps/sandbox application. So back in the days that we still shipped with the SELinux sandbox, we continuously had to patch policycoreutils to use a different name for the sandbox application (we used sesandbox then).

But then we had a couple of security issues with the SELinux sandbox application. In 2011, CVE-2011-1011 came up in which the seunshare_mount function had a security issue. And in 2014, CVE-2014-3215 came up with - again - a security issue with seunshare.

At that point, I had enough of this sandbox utility. First of all, it never quite worked enough on Gentoo as it is (as it also requires a policy which is not part of the upstream release) and given its wide open access approach (it was meant to contain various types of workloads, so security concessions had to be made), I decided to no longer support the SELinux sandbox in Gentoo.

None of the Gentoo SELinux users ever approached me with the question to add it back.

And that is why Gentoo is not vulnerable to this specific issue.


Comments

To comment as a guest, use "Or sign up with disqus" and then select the "I'd rather post as guest" option.

comments powered by Disqus