[apparmor] AppArmor security goal text

[John Johansen]

I dug up the old AppArmor security goal text Crispin wrote in 2008.  It
isn't entirely accurate anymore and its not what I would include in a
current submission but it is worth taking a look at, and I figured I
better post it as is before I loose it again.

cheers
john

AppArmor Security Goal
Crispin Cowan, PhD
MercenaryLinux.com

This document specifies the security goal that AppArmor is intended to
achieve, so that users can evaluate whether AppArmor will meet their
needs, and kernel developers can evaluate whether AppArmor is living up
to its claims. This document is *not* a general purpose explanation of
how AppArmor works, nor is it an explanation for why one might want to
use AppArmor rather than some other system.

AppArmor is intended to limit system damage from attackers exploiting
vulnerabilities in applications that the system hosts. The threat is
that an attacker can cause a vulnerable application to do something
unexpected and undesirable. AppArmor addresses this threat by confining
the application to access only the resources it needs to access to
execute properly, effectively imposing "least privilege" execution on
the application.

Applications interact with the rest of the system via resources
including files, interprocess communication, networking, capabilities,
and execution of other applications. The purpose of least privilege is
to bound the damage that a malicious user or code can do by removing
access to resources that the application does not need for its intended
function. This is true for all access control systems, including AppArmor.

The "attacker" is someone trying to gain the privileges of a process for
themselves. For instance, a policy for a web server might grant read
only access to most web documents, preventing an attacker who can
corrupt the web server from defacing the web pages. A web server has
access to the web server's local file system, and a network attacker
trying to hack the web server does not have such file access. An e-mail
attacker attempting to infect the recipient of the e-mail does not have
access to the files that the victim user's mail client does. By limiting
the scope of access for an application, AppArmor can limit the damage an
attacker can do by exploiting vulnerabilities in applications.

An "application" is one or more related processes performing a function,
e.g. the gang of processes that constitute an Apache web server, or a
Postfix mail server. AppArmor *only* confines processes that the
AppArmor policy says it should confine, and other processes are
permitted to do anything that DAC permits. This is sometimes known as a
targeted security policy.

AppArmor does not provide a "default" policy that applies to all
processes. So to defend an entire host, you have to piece-wise confine
each process that is exposed to potential attack. For instance, to
defend a system against network attack, place AppArmor profiles around
every application that accesses the network. This limits the damage a
network attacker can do to the file system to only those files granted
by the profiles for the network-available applications. Similarly, to
defend a system against attack from the console, place AppArmor profiles
around every application that accessed the keyboard and mouse. The
system is "defended" in that the worst the attacker can do to corrupt
the system is limited to the transitive closure of what the confined
processes are allowed to access.

AppArmor currently mediates access to files, ability to use POSIX.1e
Capabilities, and coarse-grained control on network access. This is
sufficient to prevent a confined process from *directly* corrupting the
file system. It is not sufficient to prevent a confined process from
*indirectly* corrupting the system by influencing some other process to
do the dirty deed. But to do so requires a complicit process that can be
manipulated through another channel such as IPC. A "complicit" process
is either a malicious process the attacker somehow got control of, or is
a process that is actively listening to IPC of some kind and can be
corrupted via IPC.

The only IPC that AppArmor mediates is access to named sockets, FIFOs,
etc. that appear in the file system name space, a side effect of
AppArmor's file access mediation. Future versions of AppArmor will
mediate more resources, including finer grained network access controls,
and controls on various forms of IPC.

AppArmor specifies the programs to be confined and the resources they
can access in a syntax similar to how users are accustomed to accessing
those resources. So file access controls are specified using absolute
paths with respect to the name space the process is in. POSIX.1e
capabilities are specified by name. Network access controls currently
are specified by simply naming the protocol that can be used e.g. tcp,
udp, and in the future will be more general, resembling firewall rules.

Thus the AppArmor security goal should be considered piecewise from the
point of view of a single confined process: that process should only be
able to access the resources specified in its profile:

    * can only access files that are reachable in its name space by path
      names matching its profile, and only with the permitted modes:
      read, append, write, memory map, execute, and link
    * can only use the POSIX.1e capabilities listed in the profile
    * can only perform the network operations listed in the profile

Security issues that AppArmor explicitly does *not* address:

    * Processes that are not confined by AppArmor are not restricted in
      any way by AppArmor. If an unconfined process is considered an
      unacceptable threat, then confine additional applications until
      adequate security is achieved.
    * A process that is not permitted to directly access a resource can
      influence some other process that does have access to the resource
      may do so, if the "influence" is a permitted action.
    * A confined process may only access a file if it has at least one
      of the files aliases specified in its profile.  If a file alias is
      not specified in the profile then it can not be accessed by that
      path.  The creation of aliases needs to be tightly controlled in
      confined applications, hard links creation should be limited to
      provide adequate security.
    * A confined process can operate on a file descriptor passed to it
      by an unconfined process, even if it manipulates a file not in the
      confined process's profile. To block this attack, confine the
      process that passed the file descriptor.
    * Process activities not currently mediated by AppArmor are
      permitted, e.g. confined processes can perform any IPC that DAC
      permits, other than signals as mediated by CAP_KILL.
    * Manipulating AppArmor policy requires being both root privileged
      and not being confined by AppArmor, thus there is explicitly no
      capability for non-privileged users to change AppArmor policy.
    * AppArmor confines processes if they are children of a confined
      process, or if the name of the exec'd child matches the name of an
      AppArmor profile. Another process could copy a program to a
      different path name and then execute it without confinement, but
      the other process would have to have permission to do so in the
      first place. To prevent this, confine the other process and
      additional applications until adequate security is achieved.
    * Mount and namespace manipulations can be used to arbitrarily
      change the pathnames that files appear at, and thus completely
      bypass AppArmor policy. To prevent this, processes confined by
      AppArmor are currently not permitted to call mount or manipulate
      name spaces at all. A future development may provide more granular
      controls on mount and namespace manipulations.
    * AppArmor does not slice bread, cure cancer, bring world peace, or
      provide perfect security. This list may be expanded :-)