From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joshua Branson Subject: Re: Plan for Guix security (was Re: Long term plan for GuixSD security: microkernels, ocap, RISC-V support) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:48:04 -0500 Message-ID: <87bm58ch7v.fsf@dismail.de> References: <87d0u9s1x0.fsf@dustycloud.org> <877efxp8xs.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gcDFI-0001hZ-FC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:45:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gcDFF-0007fV-AV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:45:28 -0500 Received: from dismail.de ([78.46.223.134]:32650) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gcDFE-0007cY-Te for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:45:25 -0500 Received: from dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id f9d71441 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:45:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp1.dismail.de (10.240.26.11 [10.240.26.11]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 5225dd91 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:45:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp1.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id f2b6461a for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:45:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 04359248 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:45:21 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <877efxp8xs.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Vong's message of "Wed, 26 Dec 2018 05:56:15 +0800") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Vong writes: > Hello everyone, > > For microkernel, sel4 being a formally verified microkernel (developed > by security researchers?) looks promising to me. Maybe someday we can > rebase hurd on top of it (replacing mach)... I suppose it may be possible, but many of the original hurd developers "concluded that microkernel design and system design are interconnected in very intricate ways, and thus trying to use a third-party microkernel will always result in trouble". It is probably very non-trivial to port to another microkernel. https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/history/port_to_another_microkernel.html You might be interested in x15. It's a hurd-like operating system, that is probably a decade away from being useful to your average user. But it is developed by a long time Hurd developer: Richard Braun. https://www.sceen.net/x15/ > > For ocap, I've no idea about it. I've heard of apparmor and selinux but > not ocap. Btw, debian has started shipping apparmor profiles since 2017 > if I remember correctly. If everything's going well, it should be in the > next stable release. Should guix ship apparmor / selinux profiles as > well? > > For RISC-V, my dream would be using a RISC-V chip 3D-printed from a GPL > design :) > > In addition, I have some other ideas regarding guix security. > > According to , > X server lacks GUI isolation. As a result, user gaining local acess to > the machine can run a keylogger logging sudo password. This nullifies > many security maeasures. Is guix vulnerable to this as well? > > If so, how should we fix it? Qubes OS fixes it by virtualization > (running programs in a VM). But it seems to me that having multiple OS > complicates things. I haven't tried using Qubes OS though. > > Besides, I remember we have discuss about hardening before. Should I > start a new hardening branch? (although I don't time to work on it right > now). I think this is something we can do now. > > My idea is to create a new guix module (guix build hardening) which > should contains various build flags. Then we should modifiy each build > system to import from this new module and fix any build error caused by > it. We can ask the build farm to evaluate this new branch, right? > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Alex > -- Joshua Branson Sent from Emacs and Gnus