<feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<title>fscrypt.git/filesystem/filesystem.go, branch v0.3.3</title>
<subtitle>Go tool for managing Linux filesystem encryption
</subtitle>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/'/>
<entry>
<title>filesystem: create metadata files with mode 0600</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=06c989df4e31dd9f172f94fbd6243f49d4dd0b92'/>
<id>06c989df4e31dd9f172f94fbd6243f49d4dd0b92</id>
<content type='text'>
Currently, fscrypt policies and protectors are world readable, as they
are created with mode 0644.  While this can be nice for use cases where
users share these files, those use cases seem to be quite rare, and it's
not a great default security-wise since it exposes password hashes to
all users.  While fscrypt uses a very strong password hash algorithm, it
would still be best to follow the lead of /etc/shadow and keep this
information non-world-readable.

Therefore, start creating these files with mode 0600.

Of course, if users do actually want to share these files, they have the
option of simply chmod'ing them to a less restrictive mode.  An option
could also be added to make fscrypt use the old mode 0644; however, the
need for that is currently unclear.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Currently, fscrypt policies and protectors are world readable, as they
are created with mode 0644.  While this can be nice for use cases where
users share these files, those use cases seem to be quite rare, and it's
not a great default security-wise since it exposes password hashes to
all users.  While fscrypt uses a very strong password hash algorithm, it
would still be best to follow the lead of /etc/shadow and keep this
information non-world-readable.

Therefore, start creating these files with mode 0600.

Of course, if users do actually want to share these files, they have the
option of simply chmod'ing them to a less restrictive mode.  An option
could also be added to make fscrypt use the old mode 0644; however, the
need for that is currently unclear.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>filesystem: preserve metadata file permissions on updates</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=312bc381a3751e397995eeb2e63e66856912fafb'/>
<id>312bc381a3751e397995eeb2e63e66856912fafb</id>
<content type='text'>
Since fscrypt replaces metadata files rather than overwrites them (to
get atomicity), their owner will change to root if root makes a change.
That isn't too much of an issue when the files have mode 0644.  However,
it will become a much bigger issue when the files have mode 0600,
especially because existing files with mode 0644 would also get changed
to have mode 0600.

In preparation for this, start preserving the previous owner and mode of
policy and protector files when they are updated.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Since fscrypt replaces metadata files rather than overwrites them (to
get atomicity), their owner will change to root if root makes a change.
That isn't too much of an issue when the files have mode 0644.  However,
it will become a much bigger issue when the files have mode 0600,
especially because existing files with mode 0644 would also get changed
to have mode 0600.

In preparation for this, start preserving the previous owner and mode of
policy and protector files when they are updated.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Make all new metadata files owned by user when needed</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=d4ce0b892cbe68db9f90f4015342e6a9069b079c'/>
<id>d4ce0b892cbe68db9f90f4015342e6a9069b079c</id>
<content type='text'>
Since commit 4c7c6631cc5a ("Set owner of login protectors to correct
user"), login protectors are made owned by the user when root creates
one on a user's behalf.  That's good, but the same isn't true of other
files that get created at the same time:

- The policy protecting the directory
- The protector link file, if the policy is on a different filesystem
- The recovery protector, if the policy is on a different filesystem
- The recovery instructions file

In preparation for setting all metadata files to mode 0600, start making
all these files owned by the user in this scenario as well.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Since commit 4c7c6631cc5a ("Set owner of login protectors to correct
user"), login protectors are made owned by the user when root creates
one on a user's behalf.  That's good, but the same isn't true of other
files that get created at the same time:

- The policy protecting the directory
- The protector link file, if the policy is on a different filesystem
- The recovery protector, if the policy is on a different filesystem
- The recovery instructions file

In preparation for setting all metadata files to mode 0600, start making
all these files owned by the user in this scenario as well.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Extend ownership validation to entire directory structure</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=85a747493ff368a72f511619ecd391016ecb933c'/>
<id>85a747493ff368a72f511619ecd391016ecb933c</id>
<content type='text'>
A previous commit extended file ownership validation to policy and
protector files (by default -- there's an opt-out in /etc/fscrypt.conf).

However, that didn't apply to the parent directories:

	MOUNTPOINT
	MOUNTPOINT/.fscrypt
	MOUNTPOINT/.fscrypt/policies
	MOUNTPOINT/.fscrypt/protectors

The problem is that if the parent directories aren't trusted (owned by
another non-root user), then untrusted changes to their contents can be
made at any time, including the introduction of symlinks and so on.

While it's debatable how much of a problem this really is, given the
other validations that are done, it seems to be appropriate to validate
the parent directories too.

Therefore, this commit applies the same ownership validations to the
above four directories as are done on the metadata files themselves.

In addition, it is validated that none of these directories are symlinks
except for ".fscrypt" where this is explicitly supported.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
A previous commit extended file ownership validation to policy and
protector files (by default -- there's an opt-out in /etc/fscrypt.conf).

However, that didn't apply to the parent directories:

	MOUNTPOINT
	MOUNTPOINT/.fscrypt
	MOUNTPOINT/.fscrypt/policies
	MOUNTPOINT/.fscrypt/protectors

The problem is that if the parent directories aren't trusted (owned by
another non-root user), then untrusted changes to their contents can be
made at any time, including the introduction of symlinks and so on.

While it's debatable how much of a problem this really is, given the
other validations that are done, it seems to be appropriate to validate
the parent directories too.

Therefore, this commit applies the same ownership validations to the
above four directories as are done on the metadata files themselves.

In addition, it is validated that none of these directories are symlinks
except for ".fscrypt" where this is explicitly supported.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Strictly validate metadata file ownership by default</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=74e870b7bd1585b4b509da47e0e75db66336e576'/>
<id>74e870b7bd1585b4b509da47e0e75db66336e576</id>
<content type='text'>
The metadata validation checks introduced by the previous commits are
good, but to reduce the attack surface it would be much better to avoid
reading and parsing files owned by other users in the first place.

There are some possible use cases for users sharing fscrypt metadata
files, but I think that for the vast majority of users it is unneeded
and just opens up attack surface.  Thus, make fscrypt (and pam_fscrypt)
not process policies or protectors owned by other users by default.
Specifically,

   * If fscrypt or pam_fscrypt is running as a non-root user, only
     policies and protectors owned by the user or by root can be used.

   * If fscrypt is running as root, any policy or protector can be used.
     (This is to match user expectations -- starting a sudo session
     should gain rights, not remove rights.)

   * If pam_fscrypt is running as root, only policies and protectors
     owned by root can be used.  Note that this only applies when the
     root user themselves has an fscrypt login protector, which is rare.

Add an option 'allow_cross_user_metadata' to /etc/fscrypt.conf which
allows restoring the old behavior for anyone who really needs it.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
The metadata validation checks introduced by the previous commits are
good, but to reduce the attack surface it would be much better to avoid
reading and parsing files owned by other users in the first place.

There are some possible use cases for users sharing fscrypt metadata
files, but I think that for the vast majority of users it is unneeded
and just opens up attack surface.  Thus, make fscrypt (and pam_fscrypt)
not process policies or protectors owned by other users by default.
Specifically,

   * If fscrypt or pam_fscrypt is running as a non-root user, only
     policies and protectors owned by the user or by root can be used.

   * If fscrypt is running as root, any policy or protector can be used.
     (This is to match user expectations -- starting a sudo session
     should gain rights, not remove rights.)

   * If pam_fscrypt is running as root, only policies and protectors
     owned by root can be used.  Note that this only applies when the
     root user themselves has an fscrypt login protector, which is rare.

Add an option 'allow_cross_user_metadata' to /etc/fscrypt.conf which
allows restoring the old behavior for anyone who really needs it.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Make 'fscrypt setup' offer a choice of directory modes</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=6e355131670ad014e45f879475ddf800f0080d41'/>
<id>6e355131670ad014e45f879475ddf800f0080d41</id>
<content type='text'>
World-writable directories are not appropriate for some systems, so
offer a choice of single-user-writable and world-writable modes, with
single-user-writable being the default.  Add a new documentation section
to help users decide which one to use.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
World-writable directories are not appropriate for some systems, so
offer a choice of single-user-writable and world-writable modes, with
single-user-writable being the default.  Add a new documentation section
to help users decide which one to use.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>filesystem: fall back to non-atomic overwrites when required</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=45599bdfad300f1a034c70dd70b4bd180d66f52c'/>
<id>45599bdfad300f1a034c70dd70b4bd180d66f52c</id>
<content type='text'>
To allow users to update fscrypt metadata they own in
single-user-writable metadata directories (introduced by the next
commit), fall back to non-atomic overwrites when atomic ones can't be
done due to not having write access to the directory.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
To allow users to update fscrypt metadata they own in
single-user-writable metadata directories (introduced by the next
commit), fall back to non-atomic overwrites when atomic ones can't be
done due to not having write access to the directory.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>filesystem: reject spoofed login protectors</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=b44fbe71e1e93c47050322af51725bac997641e0'/>
<id>b44fbe71e1e93c47050322af51725bac997641e0</id>
<content type='text'>
If a login protector contains a UID that differs from the file owner
(and the file owner is not root), it might be a spoofed file that was
created maliciously, so make sure to consider such files to be invalid.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
If a login protector contains a UID that differs from the file owner
(and the file owner is not root), it might be a spoofed file that was
created maliciously, so make sure to consider such files to be invalid.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>filesystem: validate size and type of metadata files</title>
<updated>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-23T20:35:04+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=1a47718420317f893831b0223153d56005d5b02b'/>
<id>1a47718420317f893831b0223153d56005d5b02b</id>
<content type='text'>
Don't allow reading metadata files that are very large, as they can
crash the program due to the memory required.  Similarly, don't allow
reading metadata files that aren't regular files, such as FIFOs, or
symlinks (which could point to a device node like /dev/zero), as that
can hang the program.  Both issues were particularly problematic for
pam_fscrypt, as they could prevent users from being able to log in.

Note: these checks are arguably unneeded if we strictly check the file
ownership too, which a later commit will do.  But there's no reason not
to do these basic checks too.
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Don't allow reading metadata files that are very large, as they can
crash the program due to the memory required.  Similarly, don't allow
reading metadata files that aren't regular files, such as FIFOs, or
symlinks (which could point to a device node like /dev/zero), as that
can hang the program.  Both issues were particularly problematic for
pam_fscrypt, as they could prevent users from being able to log in.

Note: these checks are arguably unneeded if we strictly check the file
ownership too, which a later commit will do.  But there's no reason not
to do these basic checks too.
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>filesystem: remove an outdated comment</title>
<updated>2022-02-06T19:06:36+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Eric Biggers</name>
<email>ebiggers@google.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-02-06T18:32:34+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.hodgden.net/cgit.cgi/fscrypt.git/commit/?id=93fb59a5411e201ee8e220853c44a98df5e55c55'/>
<id>93fb59a5411e201ee8e220853c44a98df5e55c55</id>
<content type='text'>
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
