Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge/Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge.iso/HACKING/UNIXSEC.TXT

Text File | 1994-07-17 | 11KB | 188 lines

                      On the Security of UNIX

Recently there has been much interest in the security aspects of operating
systems and software.At issue is the ability to prevent undesired disclosure
of information, destruction of information,and harm to the functioning of the
system.This paper discusses the degree of security which can be provided under
the system and offers a number of hints on how to improve security.The first
fact to face is that UNIX was not developed with security,in any realistic
sense,in mind;this fact alone guarantees a vast number of holes.(Actually the
same statement can be made with respect to most systems.)

The area of security in which is theoretically weakest is in protecting
against crashing or at least crippling the operation of the system.The problem
here is not mainly in uncritical acceptance of bad parameters to system calls
(there may be bugs in this area, but none are known)but rather in lack of
checks for excessive consumption of resources.

Most notably, there is no limit on the amount of disk storage used, either in
total space allocated or in the number of files or directories.Here is a
particularly ghastly shell sequence guaranteed to stop the system:


while : ; do
        mkdir x
        cd x
done

Either a panic will occur because all the i-nodes on the device are used up,
or all the disk blocks will be consumed, thus preventing anyone from writing
files on the device.In this version of the system,users are prevented from
creating more than a set number of processes simultaneously,so unless users
are in collusion it is unlikely that any one can stop the system altogether.

However, creation of 20 or so CPU or disk-bound jobs leaves few resources
available for others.Also, if many large jobs are run simultaneously,swap
space may run out, causing a panic.
It should be evident that excessive consumption of diskspace, files, swap
space and processes can easily occur accidentally in malfunctioning programs
as well as at command level.In fact UNIX is essentially defenseless against
this kind of abuse,nor is there any easy fix.The best that can be said is that
it is generally fairly easy to detect what has happened when disaster strikes
,to identify the user responsible, and take appropriate action.In practice,we
have found that difficulties in this area are rather rare,but we have not been
faced with malicious users,and enjoy a fairly generous supply of resources
which have served to cushion us against accidental overconsumption.

The picture is considerably brighter in the area of protection of information
from unauthorized perusal and destruction.Here the degree of security seems
(almost) adequate theoretically, and the problems lie more in the necessity
for care in the actual use of the system.Each UNIX file has associated with
it eleven bits of protection information together with a user identification
number and a user-group identification number (UID and GID).

Nine of the protection bits are used to specify independently permission to
read, to write, and to execute the file to the user himself, to members of the
user's group, and to all other users.Each process generated by or for a user
has associated with it an effective UID and a real UID, and an effective and
real GID.When an attempt is made to access the file for reading, writing, or
executing UID for the process is changed to the UID associated with the file;
the change persists until the process terminates or until the UID changed
again by another execution of a set-UID file.Similarly the effective group ID
of a process is changed to the GID associated with a file when that file is
executed and has the set-GID bit set.The real UID and GID of a process do not
change when any file is executed,but only as the result of a privileged system
call.The basic notion of the set-UID and set-GID bits is that one may write a
program which is executableby others and which maintains files accessible to
others only by that program.

The classical example is the game-playing program which maintains records of
the scores of its players.The program itself has to read and write the score
file,but no one but the game's sponsor can be allowed unrestricted access to
the file lest they manipulate the game to their own advantage.

The solution is to turn on the set-UID bit of the game program.
When, and only when,it is invoked by players of the game,it may update the
score file but ordinary programs executed by others cannot access the score.
There are a number of special cases involved in determining access permissions.
Since executing a directory as a program is a meaningless operation,the
execute-permission bit, for directories, is taken instead to mean permission
to search the directory for a given file during the scanning of a path name;
thus if a directory has execute permission but no read permission for a given
user, he may access files with known names in the directory,but may not read
(list) the entire contents of the directory.

Write permission on a directory is interpreted to mean that the user may
create and delete files in that directory;it is impossible for any user to
write directly into any directory..Another, and from the point of view of
security, much more serious special case is that there is a ``super user''
who is able to read any file and write any non-directory.The super-user is also
 able to change the protection mode and the owner UID and GID of any file and
to invoke privileged system calls.It must be recognized that the mere notion
of a super-user is a theoretical, and usually practical, blemish on any
protection scheme.

The first necessity for a secure system is of course arranging that all files
and directories have the proper protection modes.Traditionally, UNIX software
has been exceedingly permissive in this regard;essentially all commands create
files readable and writable by everyone.In the current version,this policy may
be easily adjusted to suit the needs ofthe installation or the individual user.

Associated with each process and its descendants is a mask, which is in effect
anded with the mode of every file and directory created by that process.
In this way, users can arrange that, by default,all their files are no more
accessible than they wish.The standard mask, set by login,allows all permiss-
ions to the user himself and to his group,but disallows writing by others.

To maintain both data privacy and data integrity,it is necessary, and largely
sufficient,to make one's files inaccessible to others.
The lack of sufficiency could follow from the existence of set-UID programs
created by the user and the possibility of total breach of system security
in one of the ways discussed below(or one of the ways not discussed below).

For greater protection,an encryption scheme is available.Since the editor is
able to create encrypted documents, and the crypt command can be used to pipe
such documents into the other text-processing programs,the length of time
during which clear text versions need be available is strictly limited.The
encryption scheme used is not one of the strongest known, but it is judged
adequate, in the sense that cryptanalysisis likely to require considerably
more effort than more direct methods of reading the encrypted files.For
example, a user who stores data that he regards as truly secret should be
aware that he is implicitly trusting the system administrator not to install a
version of the crypt command that stores every typed password in a file.
Needless to say, the system administrators must be at least as careful as
their most demanding user to place the correct protection mode on the files
under their control.

In particular,it is necessary that special files be protected from writing,
and probably reading, by ordinary users when they store sensitive files
belonging to otherusers.It is easy to write programs that examine and change
files by accessing the device on which the files live.

On the issue of password security,UNIX is probably better than most systems.
Passwords are stored in an encrypted form which, in the absence of serious
attention from specialists in the field,appears reasona