Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:08:31 +0100 From: Hanno Böck <hanno@...eck.de> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Address Sanitizer local root Hi, Thanks a lot for your analysis. On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:19:21 +0100 Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote: > https://blog.hboeck.de/archives/879-Safer-use-of-C-code-running-Gentoo-with-Address-Sanitizer.html > (the later was presented at FOSDEM 2016: > https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/csafecode/ ) > > While these are interesting projects, ASan should not be > used for hardening in production systems in its current form, > so at least the language ("hardening", "protection", "safe") > should be fixed. Given that this is my work (I did the asanized Gentoo and the FOSDEM talk) I think I should answer. I hope I have made it clear that whether using asan for production purposes makes any sense was an open question to me. I have placed warnings that this is experimental and I didn't recommend any production use right now. I was aware about the performance and memory costs of asan, and I was aware that there are risks involved, but it appeared to me that balancing issues out it would still be a security win and might therefore be an option for some highly security sensitive environments. Your mail makes it clear to me that I was in error and at least in its current form asan is probably not suitable for secure use at all. I will add a note to my blogpost and the Gentoo wiki with a link to your mail to make this clear. Appart from that I wonder whether this should have any consequences for asan and which ones. Would it be desirable to: a) Try to fix security issues like the one you presented with suid binaries? (not sure what the best fix would be, maybe detect suid binaries and drop privileges back to user [not sure if that's even possible]). b) Leave issues unfixed and declare that asan is just not good for production use. In this case I agree that the asan documentation should probably include some more obvious warnings / explanations of the risks involved. c) Some other variant, like splitting asan into two different variants. One could imagine having a new cflag that would enable asan, but disable some of the ASAN_OPTIONS things like logging (however thinking about this I don't like it - if I imagine running asan on some kind of server I would want to be able to log issues). -- Hanno Böck https://hboeck.de/ mail/jabber: hanno@...eck.de GPG: BBB51E42 [ CONTENT OF TYPE application/pgp-signature SKIPPED ]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ