On Thursday, June 02, 2016 13:04:44 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 01.06.16 07:20, Adam Williamson (adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org)
> On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 15:48 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Any scheme that relies on unprivileged programs "being nice"
> > fix the inherent security problem: after logout a user should not be
> > able consume further runtime resources on the system, regardless if he
> > does that because of a bug or on purpose.
> I don't think you've yet explained exactly why this constitutes a
> 'security problem'. Could you please do so?
Well. Let's say you are responsible for the Linux desktops of a large
security-senstive company (let's say bank, whatever), and the desktops
are installed as fixed workstations, which different employees using
them at different times. They log in, they do some "important company
stuff", and then they log out again. Now, it's a large company, so it
doesn't have the closest control on every single employee, and
sometimes employees leave the company. Sometimes even the employees
browse to the wrong web sites, catch a browser exploit and suddenly
start runing spam bots under their user identity, without even
In all of these cases you really want to make sure that whatever the
user did ends – really ends – by the time he logs out. So that the
employee can't do stuff there except when logged in, and that he can't
do stuff there even long after he left the company, and that the spam
bot he caught gets killed as soon as he logs out.
Then what prevents the user from keeping a session forever?
This is really just one example. This model I think really needs to
the default everywhere. On desktops and on servers: unless the admin
permitted it explicitly, there should not be user code running. If you
allow your intern user access to a webserver to quickly check our the
resource consumption of some service that doesn't mean that he shall
be allowed to run stuff there forever, just because he once had the
login privilege for the server. And even more: after you disabled his
user account and logged him out, he really should be gone.
What exactly do you mean by "logged him out"?
You must be a privileged user to do that. If you are a privileged user,
killing his/her processes is just one more command on top of that...
> Yes, UNIX is pretty much a swiss cheese: it's really hard to secure a
> system properly so that somebody who once had access won't have access
> anymore at a later point. However, we need to start somewhere, and
> actually defining a clear lifecycle is a good start.
> Pretty much all more modern OS designs tend to have such a clear
> lifecycle btw: when the user is logged out, he's *really* logged
> out. And it's completely OK if certain users get excludeded from that,
> but if so, then the admin needs to sign off on that, and thus a
> privilege check needs to be enforced.