From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from camel.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (camel.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9D573858004 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:59:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B9D573858004 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gotplt.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=siddhesh@gotplt.org X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F34102072; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a11.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-27-102.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.27.102]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B29611024F4; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:59:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a11.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/6.0.1); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:59:46 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Harmony-Bored: 452367a34d8550b4_1611046785967_160310866 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1611046785967:469426740 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1611046785967 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a11.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a11.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBD18001B; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:59:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gotplt.org; h=subject:to :cc:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=gotplt.org; bh=/F5Z8K Eve1cW9G/5cOqT3laEDek=; b=fuX+z6gSOtiYReXeTUifsXQtXEwlBebEITiZiO Wml0LONpupYvK9mFspp4t7j94M5YkH11nDpGI0rLXfpMe1b+rxTUA7PkOAbbJp4L TM1Y2nfyMn9FvEPjrqFTap6teBXjH6Cp0Q9+dbZCMfWXvSM09VKAluVszmUyZYSf fUr98= Received: from [192.168.86.152] (unknown [103.199.172.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: siddhesh@gotplt.org) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a11.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A165D80019; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:59:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH] [RFCv2] Document Security process for binutils To: Alan Modra Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, fweimer@redhat.com References: <20210108095941.417093-1-siddhesh@gotplt.org> <53ac9309-bb52-3291-b307-33076b9d0468@gotplt.org> <20210119082701.GX26219@bubble.grove.modra.org> X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a11 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar Message-ID: <6f99c92f-1986-b8f0-0854-868598421dda@gotplt.org> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:29:32 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210119082701.GX26219@bubble.grove.modra.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3028.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_ABUSEAT, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:59:49 -0000 On 1/19/21 1:57 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > If you are serious about security then "don't run any of binutils as > root" is sufficient advice. I don't think any of this documentation > in info files is necessary for binutils, and I'd rather not see more > people fuzzing binutils. > > As someone who has spent rather a lot of time over the past year > responding to asan, ubsan, and fuzzed object file bug reports, I can > tell you that the great majority of those reports do not fix real > bugs. By "real bugs", I mean bugs that might conceivably be triggered > by real object files created by compilers or assemblers. What you said basically implies that running binutils tools in anything other than a fully trusted environments is unsupported, which eliminates all usage of binutils tools where they may be invoked remotely. Also, running as root is not the only vector. For example, one could in theory achieve remote code execution if binutils is invoked on untrusted binaries remotely. It could either be directly through a service or by chaining with another bug that causes generation or storage of invalid binaries. > Yes, we do have libbfd and libopcodes that are used by more than just > binutils and gdb, but the number of projects is small. Unfortunately that number is not zero and it is conceivable that the libraries may be used in an untrusted context. The effect of such documentation is to clearly define usage patterns that will be accepted as CVE-worthy and as a result, limit them considerably. In that sense, we're on the same team! Perhaps explicitly stating that "Bugs in binutils that need tools to be run as root to be locally exploitable will be treated as regular bugs and not as security flaws" is a worthy addition? Are there any other constraints for considering bugs as security issues that you can think of? We could keep adding those as we go along. Thanks, Siddhesh