Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1417209 > unrolled thread

dell-smm-hwmon: security problems

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  dell-smm-hwmon: security problems Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 12:00 +0200
    Re: dell-smm-hwmon: security problems Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2016-06-08 15:30 +0200
      Re: dell-smm-hwmon: security problems Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:00 +0200
        Re: dell-smm-hwmon: security problems Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2016-06-08 19:40 +0200
          Re: dell-smm-hwmon: security problems "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 20:10 +0200
            Re: dell-smm-hwmon: security problems Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 20:20 +0200
          Re: dell-smm-hwmon: security problems Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 20:20 +0200

#1417209 — dell-smm-hwmon: security problems

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello!

Mario wrote me about two I think security problems in dell-smm-hwmon 
driver and I would like to ask you, how to fix them.

1) File /proc/i8k (exists only when kernel is compiled with CONFIG_I8K) 
exports DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL and it can be read by ordinary user, without 
root permission. Normally DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL can be read from sysfs file 
/sys/class/dmi/id/product_serial but only by root user.

2) Via /proc/i8k ordinary user can set fan speed. This is because how 
"restricted" parameter and variable works. Setting fan speed by normal 
non-root user can be dangerous, e.g. malicious application under user 
"nobody" could take control of fans.

Do you have idea how to fix these problems? Just to note that /proc/i8k 
has stable kernel ABI and changing it will break all existing i8k* 
applications. But /proc/i8k is there only for old legacy laptops (year 
2000).

There is module parameter "restricted" with default value false and 
description: "Allow fan control if SYS_ADMIN capability set". Current 
code do:

	case I8K_SET_FAN:
		if (restricted && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
			return -EPERM;

For me description is a bit ambiguous. What about setting "restricted" 
by default to true and updating description to something like this?

"Disallow fan control when SYS_ADMIN capability is not set (default: 1)"

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417430

On 06/08/2016 02:57 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Mario wrote me about two I think security problems in dell-smm-hwmon
> driver and I would like to ask you, how to fix them.
>
> 1) File /proc/i8k (exists only when kernel is compiled with CONFIG_I8K)
> exports DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL and it can be read by ordinary user, without
> root permission. Normally DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL can be read from sysfs file
> /sys/class/dmi/id/product_serial but only by root user.
>
> 2) Via /proc/i8k ordinary user can set fan speed. This is because how
> "restricted" parameter and variable works. Setting fan speed by normal
> non-root user can be dangerous, e.g. malicious application under user
> "nobody" could take control of fans.
>
> Do you have idea how to fix these problems? Just to note that /proc/i8k
> has stable kernel ABI and changing it will break all existing i8k*
> applications. But /proc/i8k is there only for old legacy laptops (year
> 2000).
>
> There is module parameter "restricted" with default value false and
> description: "Allow fan control if SYS_ADMIN capability set". Current
> code do:
>
> 	case I8K_SET_FAN:
> 		if (restricted && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> 			return -EPERM;
>
> For me description is a bit ambiguous. What about setting "restricted"
> by default to true and updating description to something like this?
>
> "Disallow fan control when SYS_ADMIN capability is not set (default: 1)"
>

Sure. I am sure that someone will complain (we learned just recently
that people still use the old commands, after all), but then the old
behavior can be restored by setting the flag to 0.

I would not use a double negative to describe it. Why not just
something like "Allow fan control only if SYS_ADMIN capability set
(default 1)" ?

Guenter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417466

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wednesday 08 June 2016 15:24:10 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 06/08/2016 02:57 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > Mario wrote me about two I think security problems in
> > dell-smm-hwmon driver and I would like to ask you, how to fix
> > them.
> > 
> > 1) File /proc/i8k (exists only when kernel is compiled with
> > CONFIG_I8K) exports DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL and it can be read by
> > ordinary user, without root permission. Normally
> > DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL can be read from sysfs file
> > /sys/class/dmi/id/product_serial but only by root user.
> > 
> > 2) Via /proc/i8k ordinary user can set fan speed. This is because
> > how "restricted" parameter and variable works. Setting fan speed
> > by normal non-root user can be dangerous, e.g. malicious
> > application under user "nobody" could take control of fans.
> > 
> > Do you have idea how to fix these problems? Just to note that
> > /proc/i8k has stable kernel ABI and changing it will break all
> > existing i8k* applications. But /proc/i8k is there only for old
> > legacy laptops (year 2000).
> > 
> > There is module parameter "restricted" with default value false and
> > description: "Allow fan control if SYS_ADMIN capability set".
> > Current code do:
> >
> > 	case I8K_SET_FAN:
> > 		if (restricted && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > 			return -EPERM;
> > 
> > For me description is a bit ambiguous. What about setting
> > "restricted" by default to true and updating description to
> > something like this?
> > 
> > "Disallow fan control when SYS_ADMIN capability is not set
> > (default: 1)"
> 
> Sure. I am sure that someone will complain (we learned just recently
> that people still use the old commands, after all), but then the old
> behavior can be restored by setting the flag to 0.

Either setting that flag to 0 or running that tool under root or with 
capability CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

> I would not use a double negative to describe it. Why not just
> something like "Allow fan control only if SYS_ADMIN capability set
> (default 1)" ?

I was thinking about that description too, but there is problem with 
meaning too...

0 means fan control is allowed for any user
1 means fan control is allowed only for CAP_SYS_ADMIN

Description should be unambiguous for situation when flag is set to 0.

===

And do you have idea what to do with problem 1)?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417732

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 June 2016 15:24:10 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 06/08/2016 02:57 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > > 
> > > Mario wrote me about two I think security problems in
> > > dell-smm-hwmon driver and I would like to ask you, how to fix
> > > them.
> > > 
> > > 1) File /proc/i8k (exists only when kernel is compiled with
> > > CONFIG_I8K) exports DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL and it can be read by
> > > ordinary user, without root permission. Normally
> > > DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL can be read from sysfs file
> > > /sys/class/dmi/id/product_serial but only by root user.
> > > 
> > > 2) Via /proc/i8k ordinary user can set fan speed. This is because
> > > how "restricted" parameter and variable works. Setting fan speed
> > > by normal non-root user can be dangerous, e.g. malicious
> > > application under user "nobody" could take control of fans.
> > > 
> > > Do you have idea how to fix these problems? Just to note that
> > > /proc/i8k has stable kernel ABI and changing it will break all
> > > existing i8k* applications. But /proc/i8k is there only for old
> > > legacy laptops (year 2000).
> > > 
> > > There is module parameter "restricted" with default value false and
> > > description: "Allow fan control if SYS_ADMIN capability set".
> > > Current code do:
> > >
> > > 	case I8K_SET_FAN:
> > > 		if (restricted && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > > 			return -EPERM;
> > > 
> > > For me description is a bit ambiguous. What about setting
> > > "restricted" by default to true and updating description to
> > > something like this?
> > > 
> > > "Disallow fan control when SYS_ADMIN capability is not set
> > > (default: 1)"
> > 
> > Sure. I am sure that someone will complain (we learned just recently
> > that people still use the old commands, after all), but then the old
> > behavior can be restored by setting the flag to 0.
> 
> Either setting that flag to 0 or running that tool under root or with 
> capability CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> 
> > I would not use a double negative to describe it. Why not just
> > something like "Allow fan control only if SYS_ADMIN capability set
> > (default 1)" ?
> 
> I was thinking about that description too, but there is problem with 
> meaning too...
> 
> 0 means fan control is allowed for any user
> 1 means fan control is allowed only for CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> 
> Description should be unambiguous for situation when flag is set to 0.
> 
Sorry, I don't understand how a double negation "disallow ... if not set"
would make things less ambiguous than "allow ... only if set".

> ===
> 
> And do you have idea what to do with problem 1)?
> 

If you really want to do something about it, you could whiteout the serial
number if CAP_SYS_ADMIN is not set.

Guenter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417745

On 2016-06-08 13:37, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> On Wednesday 08 June 2016 15:24:10 Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2016 02:57 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> Mario wrote me about two I think security problems in
>>>> dell-smm-hwmon driver and I would like to ask you, how to fix
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> 1) File /proc/i8k (exists only when kernel is compiled with
>>>> CONFIG_I8K) exports DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL and it can be read by
>>>> ordinary user, without root permission. Normally
>>>> DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL can be read from sysfs file
>>>> /sys/class/dmi/id/product_serial but only by root user.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Via /proc/i8k ordinary user can set fan speed. This is because
>>>> how "restricted" parameter and variable works. Setting fan speed
>>>> by normal non-root user can be dangerous, e.g. malicious
>>>> application under user "nobody" could take control of fans.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have idea how to fix these problems? Just to note that
>>>> /proc/i8k has stable kernel ABI and changing it will break all
>>>> existing i8k* applications. But /proc/i8k is there only for old
>>>> legacy laptops (year 2000).
>>>>
>>>> There is module parameter "restricted" with default value false and
>>>> description: "Allow fan control if SYS_ADMIN capability set".
>>>> Current code do:
>>>>
>>>> 	case I8K_SET_FAN:
>>>> 		if (restricted && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>>>> 			return -EPERM;
>>>>
>>>> For me description is a bit ambiguous. What about setting
>>>> "restricted" by default to true and updating description to
>>>> something like this?
>>>>
>>>> "Disallow fan control when SYS_ADMIN capability is not set
>>>> (default: 1)"
>>>
>>> Sure. I am sure that someone will complain (we learned just recently
>>> that people still use the old commands, after all), but then the old
>>> behavior can be restored by setting the flag to 0.
>>
>> Either setting that flag to 0 or running that tool under root or with
>> capability CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>>
>>> I would not use a double negative to describe it. Why not just
>>> something like "Allow fan control only if SYS_ADMIN capability set
>>> (default 1)" ?
>>
>> I was thinking about that description too, but there is problem with
>> meaning too...
>>
>> 0 means fan control is allowed for any user
>> 1 means fan control is allowed only for CAP_SYS_ADMIN
>>
>> Description should be unambiguous for situation when flag is set to 0.
>>
> Sorry, I don't understand how a double negation "disallow ... if not set"
> would make things less ambiguous than "allow ... only if set".
Double negatives become ambiguous when you start to deal with the 
possibility of translation or working with people who are not native 
speakers of the language in question.  In English they're traditionally 
considered bad grammar, while in most other languages they are used for 
emphasis and nothing else, and thus are considered by some people to be 
bad form in technical documentation.

Given this particular case, it would probably be the least ambiguous to say:
Restrict fan control to CAP_SYS_ADMIN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417751

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wednesday 08 June 2016 19:54:35 Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-06-08 13:37, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 08 June 2016 15:24:10 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On 06/08/2016 02:57 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >>>> Hello!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Mario wrote me about two I think security problems in
> >>>> dell-smm-hwmon driver and I would like to ask you, how to fix
> >>>> them.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 1) File /proc/i8k (exists only when kernel is compiled with
> >>>> CONFIG_I8K) exports DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL and it can be read by
> >>>> ordinary user, without root permission. Normally
> >>>> DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL can be read from sysfs file
> >>>> /sys/class/dmi/id/product_serial but only by root user.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 2) Via /proc/i8k ordinary user can set fan speed. This is
> >>>> because how "restricted" parameter and variable works. Setting
> >>>> fan speed by normal non-root user can be dangerous, e.g.
> >>>> malicious application under user "nobody" could take control of
> >>>> fans.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Do you have idea how to fix these problems? Just to note that
> >>>> /proc/i8k has stable kernel ABI and changing it will break all
> >>>> existing i8k* applications. But /proc/i8k is there only for old
> >>>> legacy laptops (year 2000).
> >>>> 
> >>>> There is module parameter "restricted" with default value false
> >>>> and description: "Allow fan control if SYS_ADMIN capability
> >>>> set".
> >>>> 
> >>>> Current code do:
> >>>> 	case I8K_SET_FAN:
> >>>> 		if (restricted && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> >>>> 		
> >>>> 			return -EPERM;
> >>>> 
> >>>> For me description is a bit ambiguous. What about setting
> >>>> "restricted" by default to true and updating description to
> >>>> something like this?
> >>>> 
> >>>> "Disallow fan control when SYS_ADMIN capability is not set
> >>>> (default: 1)"
> >>> 
> >>> Sure. I am sure that someone will complain (we learned just
> >>> recently that people still use the old commands, after all), but
> >>> then the old behavior can be restored by setting the flag to 0.
> >> 
> >> Either setting that flag to 0 or running that tool under root or
> >> with capability CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> >> 
> >>> I would not use a double negative to describe it. Why not just
> >>> something like "Allow fan control only if SYS_ADMIN capability
> >>> set (default 1)" ?
> >> 
> >> I was thinking about that description too, but there is problem
> >> with meaning too...
> >> 
> >> 0 means fan control is allowed for any user
> >> 1 means fan control is allowed only for CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> >> 
> >> Description should be unambiguous for situation when flag is set
> >> to 0.
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't understand how a double negation "disallow ... if
> > not set" would make things less ambiguous than "allow ... only if
> > set".
> 
> Double negatives become ambiguous when you start to deal with the
> possibility of translation or working with people who are not native
> speakers of the language in question.  In English they're
> traditionally considered bad grammar, while in most other languages
> they are used for emphasis and nothing else, and thus are considered
> by some people to be bad form in technical documentation.
> 
> Given this particular case, it would probably be the least ambiguous
> to say: Restrict fan control to CAP_SYS_ADMIN

Thank you, this is really better!

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417749

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wednesday 08 June 2016 19:37:43 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > And do you have idea what to do with problem 1)?
> 
> If you really want to do something about it, you could whiteout the
> serial number if CAP_SYS_ADMIN is not set.

Ok, that sounds reasonable. 

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web