Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Seeks to Deliver Most Secure Linux
Jack writes "ITO is running a story on Red Hat's plan to become the most secure Linux platform. From the article: "Red Hat officially joined The National Information Assurance Partnership to bring an improved level of security and assurance to Linux. This means that the next version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux will contain kernel and Security Enhanced Linux policy enhancements, developed by IBM, Red Hat, TCS, NSA and the community.""
Well Red Hat already is a key innovator into securing the kernel. As most know, Red Hat contributes more code to the kernel than any other entity. The kernel is their livelihood. SELinux patches work with the kernel now because Red Hat engineers worked closely with the SELinux NSA guys to get it to that point. Red Hat also created exec-shield which implements a number of security benefits including NX (NoExecute) and PIE (Position Independant Executables). They release both RHEL and Fedora with sane but secure SELinux policies, compile their major services with FORTIFY_SOURCE and other GCC options that find and/or block many types of overflows and other bugs. PIE is pretty neat in that it randomizes the memory layout so an attacker executing an attack can't know what memory lays ahead, often making the overflow useless. PIE has some performance impedements, so its only typically used on public facing services. Red Hat already forces yum and up2date to verify all gpg signatures by default, and they designed the RPM format so it is highly secure and you know what you're getting when you get it (gpg signing, double hashes (MD5 and SHA1 so that even if one is cracked, the other can act as a crutch until a new solution is found). Red Hat is also reknowned for getting security updates out sometimes days before others. Red Hat is responsible for many of those security patches, and one of the reasons Linux has such a good reputation for getting patches out quickly is a direct result of Red Hat. Anyway... if I had to put my money on someone doing this for Linux, Red Hat would be where I'd put it. They've already shown that they do much for the community, they gave us cygwin, they maintain GCC and libc, they created GCJ so we can run about 95% of java programs natively, including OpenOffice and Eclipse (albeit GCJ is still under heavy development), plus many more things from writing lots of code for projects like Apache and Gnome. (I can't forget to mention buying Netscape Directory Server and giving it to the community, as well as GFS, Global File System). Red Hat's legal department sometimes stirs trouble with derivatives using thier trademark, but the Red Hat engineers actively help CentOS and others. Red Hat is the only major linux player who depends on linux to succeed. All the others, IBM, Novell, Sun, etc.. have come onto the linux "train" to see if it can make them lots of money, if Linux fails however they'll just move on to the next big thing, like they've always done. Red Hat's entire being revolves around linux and its success, they have the motivation that is needed.
Regards,
Steve
Maybe this was intended as a joke, but it's a valid point. SELinux does not make anything more secure. Why? Because it's sufficiently complicated that most people are just going to turn it off. OpenBSD has a policy that security must be on by default, must not create a significant performance hit, and must be simple enough that people actually use it. This is the reason people trust it.
Indeed, something like http://pax.grsecurity.net/ is clearly useful, but breaks too many applications, is a kernel patch to the standard kernel that you have to apply yourself, so it's not so widely used. Neither SuSE nor RedHat supports it. OpenBSD does similar things, but they make sure that the ports and the system does not break. As a OpenBSD you don't have to do anything special, apart from installing OpenBSD, to take advantage of the security enhancements.
Trustix Secure Linux has been one of the most secure distributions since its inception. No services are on by default and only a minimal install is needed most of the time. Updates come out seemingly hourly (more like daily) and it's one of the smoothest and securest server operating systems out there. If you're looking for desktop, you're not going to find it with Trustix. I've been using it as my main server distribution for ~3 years without a single problem.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
OpenBSD, from what I've heard, is good, but most of its security is based upon correct implementation. This is good, but the OpenBSD team can only audit and control the base system, meaning that applications and libraries added to the system can often degrade the security of the system as a whole.
u x-privs/kernel-2.4/capfaq-0.2.txt
Judging from the technologies and companies mentioned in the summary, this attempt at Linux security is based on providing better access controls and privilege models in the Linux kernel. By better, I mean that these mechanisms can:
1) Provide finer grain privileges so that fewer programs can be exploited to escalate privilege, and
2) Isolate unrelated programs and users from each other (e.g. an exploit in a DNS server is restricted to only accessing DNS files but is not able to manipulate web server pages).
These two techniques basically reduce the number of avenues an attacker can use to exploit a system. It is less likely that a piece of exploitable software will have sufficient access to whatever it is the attacker wants to get to. Granted, it is not a complete solution, but it's a handy thing to have in one's security toolbox.
I believe that the OpenBSD/OpenSSH teams are beginning to do similar things (e.g. OpenSSH privilege separation), but I don't think they've taken the leap to providing more sophisticated access controls in the kernel.
If you're interested, examples of trusted operating systems/access controls can be found at the following places:
Linux Capabilities:
http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/security/lin
Trusted BSD:
http://www.trustedbsd.org/docs.html
Argus Systems Group (go to the Support section and take a look at the docs for PitBull LX and Foundation; they give a rather complete description of the mechanisms):
http://www.argus-systems.com/
Trusted Computer Solutions (mentioned in the article):
http://www.trustedcs.com/index.html
Disclaimer: I used to work for Argus Systems Group, and I know a few of the TCS employees (as they are also ex-Argus employees).
Because it's too complicated. People rave about this "ports" system, but what does it buy me that my Debian package repositories don't already have? When I tried to use OpenBSD it was a pain in the ass to upgrade, administer, and find applicatons for. I'll stick with Debian Linux.
I spent a great deal of time trying to get SELinux in FC working, it turns out like most things, the devil is in the details. Here's why:
1. Enabling it during install doesn't magically make every application SELinux aware. It turns out that packages need to have SELinux features. Here's a link to the good fellow doing SELinux packages for Debian. http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ Now, I don't know if the Fedora package volunteers have done the same kind of work or not, but I'd be interested to hear either way. It reminds me of LDAP, where LDAP is good, but applications need to support it to make it great.
2. My experience turning on SELinux in FC was not good. I attempted to build a firewall with IDS and the IDS just didn't work. I'm not a coder, nor am I a really strong Linux Admin, so bye-bye SELinux and the firewall/IDS worked like it should.
3. Generally speaking, American PHB's (at least) are finally getting the message that IT security is far more important than in the past and I think this is a well-timed Marketing message with the actual SELinux implementation throughout FC being very far from their glossy claims.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
For example, I believe that the OpenBSD/OpenSSH teams are beginning to do similar things (e.g. OpenSSH privilege separation),
Privilege separation has been in OpenBSD for years. It is not something that OpenBSD is "beginning to do".
Again, it's not secure no matter what you do. If you can scan memory at anytime, you can find keys and such and get what you want. Running at PL0 and PL3 and leaving out the other 2 PLs can allow any code to run in-between PL0 and PL3 and then where will you be. A 4-layer OS is the answer.
Fortunately, my company is going to announce soon with an OS that truly is secure.
Flame away (again).
Those are my top three. OpenBSD is slick, and I love using it for applications where 99% of the functionality I need can be provided by the base system. For services that change rapidly, though, it's more of a hassle than I'm willing to put up with.
Secure Linux on the desktop? Sure (although I'd hate to give up my FreeBSD desktop system). OpenBSD on the desktop? Shoot me now.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Just one example - they threatened CentOS with legal action
legal action based on TRADEMARK infringement. TRADEMARK law is very different than copyright law in the US. TRADEMARK law DEMANDS that a TRADEMARK holder actively defend the mark or the mark can lose its protected status and anyone..even competitors could then use that trademark to cause confusion in the marketplace.
Even the name "linux" has a TRADEMARK associated with it..and there is an organization called LMI that seeks to protect the linux TRADEMARK from being used inappropriately. http://www.linuxmark.org/
Its critical to understand the difference between TRADEMARKS and COPYRIGHT. LMI's webpages do a reasonable job trying to explain why TRADEMARK enforcement even for the term "linux" is important. Please make an effort to read and understand those pages. Its just as appropriate for a for-profit business to protect its marks as it is for a non-profit organization like LMI. If Red Hat doesn't want to offer a license to its competitors for use of the marks..and centos is a competitor...thats perfectly reasonable.
I think alot of people are really missing the point, but saying "use openbsd" or use "xzy". use can have a secure data server in gov or mil orgs and have secert or top seceret data on if without "trusted" computer and defined and verus security qualifacations. SElinux provides ROLE based access control. this is a good thing, as RH will add alots documentation to selinux and maybe even some tools as well.
-Nex6
-Nex6.blogspot.com
RedHat/Fedora already do have ExecShield, which is similar to Pax:
e xecshield/
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/009jul05/features/
Please stop making it look like CentOS was a victim and Red Hat was a villain. CentOS chose a different course of action when several options were available to them. I'm really tired of seeing people not standing up for themselves but then turn around and act like they're getting pushed around.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
``The OpenBSD approach is to raise the quality level of the code to eliminate flaws in the operating environment. ... If Apache or a database or any other application running on BSD has a flaw or is misconfigured, the OS isn't going to protect you or your data.''
Ever hear of W^X (write xor execute)? Randomized library base addresses? Propolice? Privilege seperation?
All these work to protect the system even in the event of buggy applications. OpenBSD does a lot more than just auditing the code in the base install.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re: I don't know how to do it and therefore it can't be done and therefore it sucks.
It can be done. Here's how:
First some good documentation.
Run:
# up2date --install (or yum install) selinux-policy-targeted-sources /etc/selinux/targeted/src/policy
# cd
# make enableaudit
Run whatever service that is currently broken because of SELinux. Then:
# audit2allow -i /var/log/messages -l
allow httpd_t cifs_t:dir search;
allow httpd_t unlabeled_t:dir { getattr search };
...which will tell you where SELinux blocked the service. (Just some sample output here.)
Then add your own rules like this:
# cat >domains/misc/local.te <<EOF
allow httpd_t unlabeled_t:dir { getattr search read };
allow httpd_t unlabeled_t:file { getattr read };
allow httpd_t unlabeled_t:lnk_file { read getattr };
allow httpd_t cifs_t:dir { getattr search read };
allow httpd_t cifs_t:file { getattr read };
allow httpd_t cifs_t:lnk_file { read getattr };
allow httpd_t default_t:lnk_file { getattr read };
EOF
# make reload
The above is again just an example.
Try again. If it doesn't work you need to allow some more stuff, which audit2allow will tell you.
You are indeed wrong. OpenBSD includes a number of systems which make buggy code more secure. Some examples:
The OpenBSD team realises that no developer is infallible, and they work hard to ensure that security extends far beyond the base system. The work they've done on memory allocation alone is staggering - the diagrams I saw showing the before and after pictures of memory layout were staggering - and all of this was done to support a legacy architecture (x86) because a lot of people use it and they didn't want to force everyone to buy new NX-supporting chips to get the required protection.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News