Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Calculated field / command to determine category violation in SELinux AVCs #7

Open
doksu opened this issue Mar 28, 2015 · 3 comments
Open

Comments

@doksu
Copy link
Owner

doksu commented Mar 28, 2015

It would be very useful to have a calculated field (eval) which automatically compares the category set of the subject and object to determine a violation of the MCS policy (however it may be too complex for an eval and therefore require a new command would be required). In this way, a user could simply alert upon a search such as: eventtype=auditd_events type=AVC category_violation=true

Doing the equivalent for clearance/sensitivity would be a great deal easier I think, but so few people use SELinux as a Trusted System, so it doesn't seem like a priority at this stage.

@doksu
Copy link
Owner Author

doksu commented Apr 7, 2015

Confirmed category constraint violation AVC looks the same as domain/type policy violation. See example below:
type=AVC msg=audit(1428383868.036:132385): avc: denied { read } for pid=27056 comm="cat" name="foo" dev=dm-3 ino=131089 scontext=sysadm_u:staff_r:staff_t:s0 tcontext=sysadm_u:object_r:user_home_t:s0:c0 tclass=file

@doksu
Copy link
Owner Author

doksu commented Apr 7, 2015

Once this feature is working, the TE dashboard should then filter out information-flow constraint violations (or at least add it as a checkbox option) so only domain/type AVCs are represented; then create a new MLS/MCS dashboard.

@doksu
Copy link
Owner Author

doksu commented Mar 25, 2016

Created POC external command lookup to do this, but naturally it's not ready for v2.0

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant