9:19 a.m.
On a default installation? They can't but I think they can twiddle things
in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have rules for that.
Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around what
should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the same
thing with polkit.
For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as root without
a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo, there isn't a
rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
Thanks,
Trevor
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <thaller(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> Otherwise, there's a
> lovely gaping hole in the system security that can effectively be
> used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
Hi,
This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in general, or
specifically using NetworkManager.
best,
Thomas
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
9:50 a.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
Just tinkering around:
If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the following
content:
polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec" &&
subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
{
return polkit.Result.YES;
}
});
Then you can run the following to get a root shell with absolutely no
password prompt.
pkexec -u root /bin/bash
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
wrote:
On a default installation? They can't but I think they can
twiddle things
in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have rules for that.
Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around what
should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the same
thing with polkit.
For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as root without
a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo, there isn't a
rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
Thanks,
Trevor
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <thaller(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> > Otherwise, there's a
> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can effectively be
> > used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
>
> Hi,
>
> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in general, or
> specifically using NetworkManager.
>
>
> best,
> Thomas
>
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
10:07 a.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
Just tinkering around:
If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the following
content:
polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec" &&
subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
{
return polkit.Result.YES;
}
});
Then you can run the following to get a root shell with absolutely no
password prompt.
pkexec -u root /bin/bash
Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit rules is that
about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so complex
that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and what its
hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
-Steve
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan
<tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
wrote:
> On a default installation? They can't but I think they can twiddle things
> in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
>
> But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have rules for that.
>
> Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around what
> should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the same
> thing with polkit.
>
> For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as root
> without
> a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo, there isn't
> a
> rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Trevor
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <thaller(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>> > Otherwise, there's a
>> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can effectively be
>> > used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
>> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in general, or
>> specifically using NetworkManager.
>>
>>
>> best,
>> Thomas
>
> --
> Trevor Vaughan
> Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> (410) 541-6699 x788
>
> -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
10:23 a.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the "Spirit of the Rule"
which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication challenge.
He is using 'password' but the challenge could be satisfied by a number of
methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a gateway
for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule, for the
same reasons it exists for sudo.
--Sean
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> Just tinkering around:
>
> If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the following
> content:
>
> polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
> if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec" &&
> subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
> {
> return polkit.Result.YES;
> }
> });
>
> Then you can run the following to get a root shell with absolutely no
> password prompt.
>
> pkexec -u root /bin/bash
Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit rules is
that
about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so complex
that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and what its
hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
-Steve
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
>
> wrote:
> > On a default installation? They can't but I think they can twiddle
things
> > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
> >
> > But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have rules for
that.
> >
> > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around what
> > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the same
> > thing with polkit.
> >
> > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as root
> > without
> > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo, there
isn't
> > a
> > rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Trevor
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <thaller(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> >> > Otherwise, there's a
> >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can effectively be
> >> > used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
> >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in general, or
> >> specifically using NetworkManager.
> >>
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Thomas
> >
> > --
> > Trevor Vaughan
> > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > (410) 541-6699 x788
> >
> > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list --
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
10:33 a.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
Yes, spirit of the rule is exactly what I am saying.
In old polkit this was pretty easy (INI-style). In new polkit, I can do
Javascript-fu and make whatever mess I'd like to make.
Basically, industry caused a validation issue and I was a bit surprised
since I thought we all agreed that configuration files that were executable
languages were a bad idea back in the late 90's.
But, that doesn't fix the issue that we have to write rules about this if
it's going to be an enabled capability. You have to be root to edit
/etc/sudoers as well. So, either we should cover both, or ignore both since
they're essentially the same capability.
Trevor
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Sean <smalder73(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the "Spirit
of the Rule"
which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication challenge.
He is using 'password' but the challenge could be satisfied by a number of
methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a gateway
for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule, for the
same reasons it exists for sudo.
--Sean
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> > Just tinkering around:
> >
> > If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the
> following
> > content:
> >
> > polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
> > if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec" &&
> > subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
> > {
> > return polkit.Result.YES;
> > }
> > });
> >
> > Then you can run the following to get a root shell with absolutely no
> > password prompt.
> >
> > pkexec -u root /bin/bash
>
> Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit rules is
> that
> about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so complex
> that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and what its
> hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
>
> -Steve
>
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On a default installation? They can't but I think they can twiddle
> things
> > > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
> > >
> > > But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have rules
for that.
> > >
> > > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around what
> > > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the same
> > > thing with polkit.
> > >
> > > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as root
> > > without
> > > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo, there
> isn't
> > > a
> > > rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Trevor
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <thaller(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> > >> > Otherwise, there's a
> > >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can effectively be
> > >> > used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
> > >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in general, or
> > >> specifically using NetworkManager.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> best,
> > >> Thomas
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trevor Vaughan
> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
> > >
> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
>
_______________________________________________
scap-security-guide mailing list --
scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
10:48 a.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
Ok, it looks like we want to fail on anything in /etc/polkit-1 that
contains 'return polkit.Result.YES' and that would be the equivalent of
checking for NOPASSWD in sudo.
Now, I don't know how to handle cases where things are loaded from
somewhere else.
Does anyone know how to print all active policykit rules with content?
Thanks,
Trevor
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:33 AM Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
wrote:
Yes, spirit of the rule is exactly what I am saying.
In old polkit this was pretty easy (INI-style). In new polkit, I can do
Javascript-fu and make whatever mess I'd like to make.
Basically, industry caused a validation issue and I was a bit surprised
since I thought we all agreed that configuration files that were executable
languages were a bad idea back in the late 90's.
But, that doesn't fix the issue that we have to write rules about this if
it's going to be an enabled capability. You have to be root to edit
/etc/sudoers as well. So, either we should cover both, or ignore both since
they're essentially the same capability.
Trevor
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Sean <smalder73(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the "Spirit of the
Rule"
> which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication challenge.
> He is using 'password' but the challenge could be satisfied by a number of
> methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
>
> With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a gateway
> for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule, for the
> same reasons it exists for sudo.
>
> --Sean
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>> > Just tinkering around:
>> >
>> > If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the
>> following
>> > content:
>> >
>> > polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
>> > if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec" &&
>> > subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
>> > {
>> > return polkit.Result.YES;
>> > }
>> > });
>> >
>> > Then you can run the following to get a root shell with absolutely no
>> > password prompt.
>> >
>> > pkexec -u root /bin/bash
>>
>> Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit rules is
>> that
>> about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so
>> complex
>> that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and what
>> its
>> hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <
>> tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > On a default installation? They can't but I think they can twiddle
>> things
>> > > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
>> > >
>> > > But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have
rules for
>> that.
>> > >
>> > > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around what
>> > > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the
>> same
>> > > thing with polkit.
>> > >
>> > > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as root
>> > > without
>> > > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo, there
>> isn't
>> > > a
>> > > rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Trevor
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller
<thaller(a)redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>> > >> > Otherwise, there's a
>> > >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can effectively
be
>> > >> > used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
>> > >>
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
>> > >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in general,
or
>> > >> specifically using NetworkManager.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> best,
>> > >> Thomas
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Trevor Vaughan
>> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
>> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
>> > >
>> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> scap-security-guide mailing list --
>> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives:
>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
>>
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe...
>
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
11:09 a.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
Hello Sean,
On Monday, September 17, 2018 11:23:29 AM EDT Sean wrote:
I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the "Spirit
of the Rule"
which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication challenge.
He is using 'password' but the challenge could be satisfied by a number of
methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a gateway
for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule, for the
same reasons it exists for sudo.
Right. I agree. However, you can modify your pam stack to allow root
escalation without a password, too. You just don't do it. I think that its
important to define the expected rules.
But what I was saying is that the language is so rich that you cannot try to
parse it and reason whether it is good or not. I had this same discussion way
back when polkit was introduced to Fedora back in Nov 2012:
https://marc.info/?l=fedora-devel-list&m=135273468717951&w=2
I tried to get some changes in place back then but not enough people
understood that auditing the security posture is a must.
In any event, I think the path forward is to look for the polkit enabled
software that is on a server install, audit the code, if there is no code -
write it. Then we can get the paths and hashs and create tests.
-Steve
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb
<sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> > Just tinkering around:
> >
> > If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the
> > following
> > content:
> >
> > polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
> >
> > if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec" &&
> >
> > subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
> >
> > {
> >
> > return polkit.Result.YES;
> >
> > }
> >
> > });
> >
> > Then you can run the following to get a root shell with absolutely no
> > password prompt.
> >
> > pkexec -u root /bin/bash
>
> Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit rules is
> that
> about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so complex
> that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and what its
> hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
>
> -Steve
>
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan
> > <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On a default installation? They can't but I think they can twiddle
>
> things
>
> > > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
> > >
> > > But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have rules
for
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around what
> > > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the
> > > same
> > > thing with polkit.
> > >
> > > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as root
> > > without
> > > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo, there
>
> isn't
>
> > > a
> > > rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Trevor
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <thaller(a)redhat.com>
>
> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> > >> > Otherwise, there's a
> > >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can effectively
be
> > >> > used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
> > >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in general, or
> > >> specifically using NetworkManager.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> best,
> > >> Thomas
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trevor Vaughan
> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
> > >
> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information
> > > --
>
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fe
> dorahosted.org
12:06 p.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
On Monday, September 17, 2018 11:48:36 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
Ok, it looks like we want to fail on anything in /etc/polkit-1 that
contains 'return polkit.Result.YES' and that would be the equivalent of
checking for NOPASSWD in sudo.
But you can pass so many ways:
return "yes";
return 'y' + 'e' + 's';
tmp = "yes";
return tmp;
etc.
But you can also modify rules that restrict actions to local, redefine admin
groups, call out to programs, etc.
-Steve
Now, I don't know how to handle cases where things are loaded
from
somewhere else.
Does anyone know how to print all active policykit rules with content?
Thanks,
Trevor
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:33 AM Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
wrote:
> Yes, spirit of the rule is exactly what I am saying.
>
> In old polkit this was pretty easy (INI-style). In new polkit, I can do
> Javascript-fu and make whatever mess I'd like to make.
>
> Basically, industry caused a validation issue and I was a bit surprised
> since I thought we all agreed that configuration files that were
> executable languages were a bad idea back in the late 90's.
>
> But, that doesn't fix the issue that we have to write rules about this if
> it's going to be an enabled capability. You have to be root to edit
> /etc/sudoers as well. So, either we should cover both, or ignore both
> since they're essentially the same capability.
>
> Trevor
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Sean <smalder73(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the "Spirit of the
Rule"
>> which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication challenge.
>> He is using 'password' but the challenge could be satisfied by a number
>> of
>> methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
>>
>> With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a gateway
>> for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule, for the
>> same reasons it exists for sudo.
>>
>> --Sean
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>>> > Just tinkering around:
>>> >
>>> > If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the
>>>
>>> following
>>>
>>> > content:
>>> >
>>> > polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
>>> >
>>> > if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec"
&&
>>> >
>>> > subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
>>> >
>>> > {
>>> >
>>> > return polkit.Result.YES;
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > });
>>> >
>>> > Then you can run the following to get a root shell with absolutely no
>>> > password prompt.
>>> >
>>> > pkexec -u root /bin/bash
>>>
>>> Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit rules is
>>> that
>>> about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so
>>> complex
>>> that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and what
>>> its
>>> hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>>
>>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <
>>>
>>> tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > On a default installation? They can't but I think they can
twiddle
>>>
>>> things
>>>
>>> > > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
>>> > >
>>> > > But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we have
rules for
>>>
>>> that.
>>>
>>> > > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules around
>>> > > what
>>> > > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect the
>>>
>>> same
>>>
>>> > > thing with polkit.
>>> > >
>>> > > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands as
root
>>> > > without
>>> > > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo,
there
>>>
>>> isn't
>>>
>>> > > a
>>> > > rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks,
>>> > >
>>> > > Trevor
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller
<thaller(a)redhat.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>>> > >> > Otherwise, there's a
>>> > >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can
effectively
>>> > >> > be
>>> > >> > used to run pretty much anything with root permissions.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Hi,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get root
>>> > >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in
general,
>>> > >> or
>>> > >> specifically using NetworkManager.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> best,
>>> > >> Thomas
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Trevor Vaughan
>>> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
>>> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
>>> > >
>>> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary
>>> > > information
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> scap-security-guide mailing list --
>>> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>> List Archives:
>>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.
>>> fedorahosted.org>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> scap-security-guide mailing list --
>> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives:
>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.f
>> edorahosted.org>
> --
> Trevor Vaughan
> Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> (410) 541-6699 x788
>
> -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
12:30 p.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
Sure, but it's at least something that we can try.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 11:48:36 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> Ok, it looks like we want to fail on anything in /etc/polkit-1 that
> contains 'return polkit.Result.YES' and that would be the equivalent of
> checking for NOPASSWD in sudo.
But you can pass so many ways:
return "yes";
return 'y' + 'e' + 's';
tmp = "yes";
return tmp;
etc.
But you can also modify rules that restrict actions to local, redefine
admin
groups, call out to programs, etc.
-Steve
> Now, I don't know how to handle cases where things are loaded from
> somewhere else.
>
> Does anyone know how to print all active policykit rules with content?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Trevor
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:33 AM Trevor Vaughan <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
>
> wrote:
> > Yes, spirit of the rule is exactly what I am saying.
> >
> > In old polkit this was pretty easy (INI-style). In new polkit, I can do
> > Javascript-fu and make whatever mess I'd like to make.
> >
> > Basically, industry caused a validation issue and I was a bit surprised
> > since I thought we all agreed that configuration files that were
> > executable languages were a bad idea back in the late 90's.
> >
> > But, that doesn't fix the issue that we have to write rules about this
if
> > it's going to be an enabled capability. You have to be root to edit
> > /etc/sudoers as well. So, either we should cover both, or ignore both
> > since they're essentially the same capability.
> >
> > Trevor
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Sean <smalder73(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the "Spirit of
the
Rule"
> >> which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication
challenge.
> >> He is using 'password' but the challenge could be satisfied by a
number
> >> of
> >> methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
> >>
> >> With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a
gateway
> >> for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule, for
the
> >> same reasons it exists for sudo.
> >>
> >> --Sean
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> >>> > Just tinkering around:
> >>> >
> >>> > If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with the
> >>>
> >>> following
> >>>
> >>> > content:
> >>> >
> >>> > polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
> >>> >
> >>> > if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec"
&&
> >>> >
> >>> > subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
> >>> >
> >>> > {
> >>> >
> >>> > return polkit.Result.YES;
> >>> >
> >>> > }
> >>> >
> >>> > });
> >>> >
> >>> > Then you can run the following to get a root shell with
absolutely
no
> >>> > password prompt.
> >>> >
> >>> > pkexec -u root /bin/bash
> >>>
> >>> Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit rules
is
> >>> that
> >>> about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so
> >>> complex
> >>> that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and what
> >>> its
> >>> hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
> >>>
> >>> -Steve
> >>>
> >>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <
> >>>
> >>> tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
> >>>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > > On a default installation? They can't but I think they
can
twiddle
> >>>
> >>> things
> >>>
> >>> > > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > But they also can't get to root via 'sudo' and we
have rules for
> >>>
> >>> that.
> >>>
> >>> > > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have rules
around
> >>> > > what
> >>> > > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I expect
the
> >>>
> >>> same
> >>>
> >>> > > thing with polkit.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary commands
as
root
> >>> > > without
> >>> > > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike sudo,
there
> >>>
> >>> isn't
> >>>
> >>> > > a
> >>> > > rule saying not to do that and a method to check for it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thanks,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Trevor
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <
thaller(a)redhat.com>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> >>> > >> > Otherwise, there's a
> >>> > >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that can
effectively
> >>> > >> > be
> >>> > >> > used to run pretty much anything with root
permissions.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Hi,
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user get
root
> >>> > >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL? Either in
general,
> >>> > >> or
> >>> > >> specifically using NetworkManager.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> best,
> >>> > >> Thomas
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Trevor Vaughan
> >>> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> >>> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary
> >>> > > information
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> >>> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> >>> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> >>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> >>> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> >>> List Archives:
> >>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.
> >>> fedorahosted.org>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> >> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> >> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> >> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> >> List Archives:
> >>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.f
> >> edorahosted.org>
> > --
> > Trevor Vaughan
> > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > (410) 541-6699 x788
> >
> > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
2:29 p.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
On Monday, September 17, 2018 1:30:45 PM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
Sure, but it's at least something that we can try.
If you're scanning for polkit.Result.YES and you found it, then you got the
ones that are shipped by default. If someone is being tricky, then you won't
catch it with a regex.
So, how do you feel about actions with:
<allow_active>yes</allow_active>
or
<allow_any>yes</allow_any>
These bypass authentication, too. In some cases its benign (who cares if you
can list tuned profiles?)...in other cases it might be trouble.
How about the _KEEP replies? The ones with auth_self?
-Steve
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 11:48:36 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> > Ok, it looks like we want to fail on anything in /etc/polkit-1 that
> > contains 'return polkit.Result.YES' and that would be the equivalent
of
> > checking for NOPASSWD in sudo.
>
> But you can pass so many ways:
>
> return "yes";
>
> return 'y' + 'e' + 's';
>
> tmp = "yes";
> return tmp;
>
> etc.
>
> But you can also modify rules that restrict actions to local, redefine
> admin
> groups, call out to programs, etc.
>
> -Steve
>
> > Now, I don't know how to handle cases where things are loaded from
> > somewhere else.
> >
> > Does anyone know how to print all active policykit rules with content?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Trevor
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:33 AM Trevor Vaughan
> > <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yes, spirit of the rule is exactly what I am saying.
> > >
> > > In old polkit this was pretty easy (INI-style). In new polkit, I can
> > > do
> > > Javascript-fu and make whatever mess I'd like to make.
> > >
> > > Basically, industry caused a validation issue and I was a bit
> > > surprised
> > > since I thought we all agreed that configuration files that were
> > > executable languages were a bad idea back in the late 90's.
> > >
> > > But, that doesn't fix the issue that we have to write rules about
> > > this
>
> if
>
> > > it's going to be an enabled capability. You have to be root to edit
> > > /etc/sudoers as well. So, either we should cover both, or ignore both
> > > since they're essentially the same capability.
> > >
> > > Trevor
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Sean <smalder73(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the "Spirit
of the
>
> Rule"
>
> > >> which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication
>
> challenge.
>
> > >> He is using 'password' but the challenge could be satisfied by
a
>
> number
>
> > >> of
> > >> methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
> > >>
> > >> With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a
>
> gateway
>
> > >> for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule, for
>
> the
>
> > >> same reasons it exists for sudo.
> > >>
> > >> --Sean
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb
<sgrubb(a)redhat.com>
>
> wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan
wrote:
> > >>> > Just tinkering around:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules with
the
> > >>>
> > >>> following
> > >>>
> > >>> > content:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
> > >>> >
> > >>> > if (action.id == "org.freedesktop.policykit.exec"
&&
> > >>> >
> > >>> > subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
> > >>> >
> > >>> > {
> > >>> >
> > >>> > return polkit.Result.YES;
> > >>> >
> > >>> > }
> > >>> >
> > >>> > });
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Then you can run the following to get a root shell with
> > >>> > absolutely
>
> no
>
> > >>> > password prompt.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > pkexec -u root /bin/bash
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on polkit
rules
>
> is
>
> > >>> that
> > >>> about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language is so
> > >>> complex
> > >>> that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist and
> > >>> what
> > >>> its
> > >>> hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Steve
> > >>>
> > >>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <
> > >>>
> > >>> tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> > > On a default installation? They can't but I think
they can
>
> twiddle
>
> > >>> things
> > >>>
> > >>> > > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > But they also can't get to root via 'sudo'
and we have rules
> > >>> > > for
> > >>>
> > >>> that.
> > >>>
> > >>> > > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have
rules
> > >>> > > around
> > >>> > > what
> > >>> > > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I guess I
expect
> > >>> > > the
> > >>>
> > >>> same
> > >>>
> > >>> > > thing with polkit.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary
commands as
>
> root
>
> > >>> > > without
> > >>> > > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But, unlike
sudo,
>
> there
>
> > >>> isn't
> > >>>
> > >>> > > a
> > >>> > > rule saying not to do that and a method to check for
it.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Thanks,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Trevor
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <
>
> thaller(a)redhat.com>
>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor Vaughan
wrote:
> > >>> > >> > Otherwise, there's a
> > >>> > >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security that
can
> > >>> > >> > effectively
> > >>> > >> > be
> > >>> > >> > used to run pretty much anything with root
permissions.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Hi,
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged user
get root
> > >>> > >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL?
Either in
>
> general,
>
> > >>> > >> or
> > >>> > >> specifically using NetworkManager.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> best,
> > >>> > >> Thomas
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --
> > >>> > > Trevor Vaughan
> > >>> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > >>> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted
proprietary
> > >>> > > information
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> > >>> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > >>> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > >>> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>
> > >>> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
> > >>> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.
>
> > >>> fedorahosted.org>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> > >> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > >> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>
> > >> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
> > >> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.f
>
> > >> edorahosted.org>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trevor Vaughan
> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
> > >
> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information
> > > --
2:37 p.m.
New subject: NetworkManager Requirements
Heh, turns out that I have a YES rule in place to disable the shutdown
button.
Well, it does seem like the SSG should have *something* about this and at
least cover the perils of running pkexec and that there should be something
that at least does a cursory glance at the polkit rules.
If we're not going to look at anything and are going to fall back on 'the
admin knows what they are doing', then I also don't see the need to fail on
NOPASSWD in sudoers.
I mean, if you're running in a key-only environment, you're probably going
to have NOPASSWD in your sudoers and you "know what you are doing".
Trevor
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 3:29 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 1:30:45 PM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> Sure, but it's at least something that we can try.
If you're scanning for polkit.Result.YES and you found it, then you got
the
ones that are shipped by default. If someone is being tricky, then you
won't
catch it with a regex.
So, how do you feel about actions with:
<allow_active>yes</allow_active>
or
<allow_any>yes</allow_any>
These bypass authentication, too. In some cases its benign (who cares if
you
can list tuned profiles?)...in other cases it might be trouble.
How about the _KEEP replies? The ones with auth_self?
-Steve
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 11:48:36 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> > > Ok, it looks like we want to fail on anything in /etc/polkit-1 that
> > > contains 'return polkit.Result.YES' and that would be the
equivalent
of
> > > checking for NOPASSWD in sudo.
> >
> > But you can pass so many ways:
> >
> > return "yes";
> >
> > return 'y' + 'e' + 's';
> >
> > tmp = "yes";
> > return tmp;
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > But you can also modify rules that restrict actions to local, redefine
> > admin
> > groups, call out to programs, etc.
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> > > Now, I don't know how to handle cases where things are loaded from
> > > somewhere else.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know how to print all active policykit rules with
content?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Trevor
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:33 AM Trevor Vaughan
> > > <tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yes, spirit of the rule is exactly what I am saying.
> > > >
> > > > In old polkit this was pretty easy (INI-style). In new polkit, I
can
> > > > do
> > > > Javascript-fu and make whatever mess I'd like to make.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, industry caused a validation issue and I was a bit
> > > > surprised
> > > > since I thought we all agreed that configuration files that were
> > > > executable languages were a bad idea back in the late 90's.
> > > >
> > > > But, that doesn't fix the issue that we have to write rules
about
> > > > this
> >
> > if
> >
> > > > it's going to be an enabled capability. You have to be root to
edit
> > > > /etc/sudoers as well. So, either we should cover both, or ignore
both
> > > > since they're essentially the same capability.
> > > >
> > > > Trevor
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Sean <smalder73(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >> I think the gist of what Trevor's driving at is the
"Spirit of the
> >
> > Rule"
> >
> > > >> which requires privilege escalation to pass an authentication
> >
> > challenge.
> >
> > > >> He is using 'password' but the challenge could be
satisfied by a
> >
> > number
> >
> > > >> of
> > > >> methods - pkcs#11 token, ssh-key, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> With sudo, NOPASSWD rules are not compliant. Polkit, if it is a
> >
> > gateway
> >
> > > >> for privilege escalation, should follow the spirit of this rule,
for
> >
> > the
> >
> > > >> same reasons it exists for sudo.
> > > >>
> > > >> --Sean
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Steve Grubb
<sgrubb(a)redhat.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > >>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 10:50:28 AM EDT Trevor Vaughan
wrote:
> > > >>> > Just tinkering around:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > If you have /etc/polkit/rules.d/10-nopasswd_hack.rules
with the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> following
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > content:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > polkit.addRule(function(action, subject) {
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > if (action.id ==
"org.freedesktop.policykit.exec" &&
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > subject.isInGroup("wheel"))
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > {
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > return polkit.Result.YES;
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > }
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > });
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Then you can run the following to get a root shell with
> > > >>> > absolutely
> >
> > no
> >
> > > >>> > password prompt.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > pkexec -u root /bin/bash
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes. But you need root to put it there. My thoughts on
polkit
rules
> >
> > is
> >
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> about all you can do is sha256 hash the files. The language
is so
> > > >>> complex
> > > >>> that parsing it is impossible. You can say what should exist
and
> > > >>> what
> > > >>> its
> > > >>> hash should be. It goes downhill from there.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Steve
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM Trevor Vaughan <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> tvaughan(a)onyxpoint.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >>> > > On a default installation? They can't but I
think they can
> >
> > twiddle
> >
> > > >>> things
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > > in NetworkManager from the GUI IIRC.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > But they also can't get to root via
'sudo' and we have rules
> > > >>> > > for
> > > >>>
> > > >>> that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > > Polkit is basically sudo for DBus stuff and we have
rules
> > > >>> > > around
> > > >>> > > what
> > > >>> > > should, and should not, be done with sudo so I
guess I expect
> > > >>> > > the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> same
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > > thing with polkit.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > For instance, I could use pkexec to run arbitrary
commands as
> >
> > root
> >
> > > >>> > > without
> > > >>> > > a password if I have a rule set up for it. But,
unlike sudo,
> >
> > there
> >
> > > >>> isn't
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > > a
> > > >>> > > rule saying not to do that and a method to check
for it.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Thanks,
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Trevor
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 AM Thomas Haller <
> >
> > thaller(a)redhat.com>
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > >> On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 09:19 -0400, Trevor
Vaughan wrote:
> > > >>> > >> > Otherwise, there's a
> > > >>> > >> > lovely gaping hole in the system security
that can
> > > >>> > >> > effectively
> > > >>> > >> > be
> > > >>> > >> > used to run pretty much anything with root
permissions.
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> Hi,
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> This makes me wonder. How can an unpriviledged
user get root
> > > >>> > >> permissions on a default installation of RHEL?
Either in
> >
> > general,
> >
> > > >>> > >> or
> > > >>> > >> specifically using NetworkManager.
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> best,
> > > >>> > >> Thomas
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > --
> > > >>> > > Trevor Vaughan
> > > >>> > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > > >>> > > (410) 541-6699 x788
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted
proprietary
> > > >>> > > information
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> > > >>> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > > >>> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > > >>> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> >
> > > >>> List Guidelines:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> >
> > > >>> List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists
.
> >
> > > >>> fedorahosted.org>>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> scap-security-guide mailing list --
> > > >> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > > >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > > >> scap-security-guide-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > > >> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> >
> > > >> List Guidelines:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> >
> > > >> List Archives:
> >
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.f
> >
> > > >> edorahosted.org>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Trevor Vaughan
> > > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > > > (410) 541-6699 x788
> > > >
> > > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary
information
> > > > --
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
2059
days inactive
2059
days old
scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org
10 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Sean -
Steve Grubb -
Trevor Vaughan