-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 12:46:32PM +0200, Hugo V.C. wrote: > " In particular, this means that seL4 has to have > acceptable performance while being resistant to speculative execution > vulnerabilities. It might mean that significant amounts of code will > need to be verified that currently are not, and it will definitely > require interrupt remapping support. Lack of interrupt remapping was > part of Qubes Security Bulletin #1, all the way back in 2011." > > This is out of my know-how comfort zone... maybe someone from seL4 core > team can add some comments here... > > "I suspect one of the hardest parts will be getting pre-disclosure > notifications of > embargoed CPU vulnerabilities." > > I have no idea how to deal with this. Does Xen has access to those > pre-disclosure notifications? If not then we are in same situation. If Xen > does have access, then I guess seL4 Foundation (now backed by Google too) > can get same access level.
Xen Project does indeed have such access, as does Linux. seL4 Foundation should indeed be able to get the same level of access. The Linux Security Team does *not* sign NDAs, so hopefully seL4 Foundation will not need to. > " From my perspective, the most important win would be replacing Xen, > which has had serious security flaws in the past, with formally verified > code." > > 100% agree. And that is where IMHO main effort should go if this lovely > partnership between QubesOS and seL4 ever starts. Yup! > "The Linux TCP/IP stack is a very large attack surface, but it is also > heavily fuzzed and extremely mature. If it _did_ have a reliably > exploitable remote code execution vulnerability, the consequences would > dwarf those of Heartbleed, ShellShock, or even Log4Shell. To the best > of my knowledge, there have been no such vulnerabilities in the past > decade. GRO Packet of Death does not count, as it requires GRO to be > enabled on a UDP socket and no Qubes OS component does that." > > This is my know-how comfort zone... As far I have realized, vulnerabilities > involving TCP/IP stacks of massive deployed devices > are handled with extremely secrecy and few details are made public. I was > somewhat involved in the Urgent/11 vulnerability research, exploitation, > patching and disclosure on a derivative of VxWorks that affected the > VxWorks’ TCP/IP stack (IPnet) and could see the impact of such issues. > TCP/IP stacks are tested with ancient techniques (even modern fuzzing > techniques are "old school" security from my point view). > Modern vulnerability research involve manual analysis of the code logic and > exploitation of corner side scenarios or configs or uncommon protocols. I > have found some really nasty remote vulnerabilities (i.e. an UDP IKE single > packet "ping of death") following this method so I guess that more skilled > and resource capable adversaries (like govs) can do magic too, much better > than me, on VxWorks, Linux, Windows, iOS and most OSs around there. TCP/IP > stacks are too complex for humans and we are trying to automate all testing > but this simply do not works (IMHO). I agree. Probably the main reason I do not worry too much about the Linux TCP/IP stack is that if someone does find a reliable 0day in it, then the exploitability of Qubes OS is the least of my worries. I, too, have found nasty vulnerabilities (unauthenticated remote DoS in MIT Kerberos, signature verification bypass in DNF), usually using the same method. > And the Linux TCP/IP stack... yes, I agree it is very well tested and lot > of eyes are there watching, but still is the main (remote) entry point, so > I think it makes sense to think about having it ported to seL4 native some > day in the future. But of course, this is not a priority, as you mentioned > above, or even this may never happen, who knows... not my concern right > now, my concern is about VM isolation guarantees (hypervisor), and this is > where seL4 fits very well, and where QubesOS and seL4 can have a nice > friendship. Indeed. Worth noting that the hypervisor is not the only attack surface by any stretch of the imagination. blkback runs in dom0, for instance, and there are a whole slew of Qubes-specific services that are all unverified and can (and have!) had bugs. One way in which an seL4-based Qubes OS can improve is to use layer 3 connections between qubes, rather than layer 2 connections. The Ethernet header serves no useful function in the default configuration, but the associated ARP/NDP processing does introduce attack surface. A much nicer approach would be to simply send IP packets without additional encapsulation. The version field in the header indicates whether the packet is IPv4 or IPv6, so there is no need to distinguish them at the link layer. A layer 2 interface might be needed as well for advanced use-cases, but it should be the exception, not the rule. WireGuard is a widely deployed layer-3 network interface, so it is clear that Linux has good support for this. IP packets are self-delimiting, so it is not even necessary to handle message framing in the connection protocol. Additionally, if you want nested virtualization (you do, Xen not having it is a significant limitation) you might need kernel-mode emulation of at least some instructions to get decent performance. The same goes for some other hot-path parts of the virtualization stack, such as IPI and APIC virtualization. Being able to do these in userspace would be ideal, but performance might require having them run in the kernel, and that means formally verifying them for security. Another annoying Xen limitation is while it has core scheduling, it does not have any form of address space isolation, meaning that SMT must be disabled for security. Hyper-V does not have this limitation, provided that one does not care about within-guest security. Obviously, neither of these are blockers. > And thank you for your comments Demi, openly debate this is a very first > step required. You’re welcome! - -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) Invisible Things Lab -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEdodNnxM2uiJZBxxxsoi1X/+cIsEFAmLyUPgACgkQsoi1X/+c IsF4cA/8DVfeAt8+vfEtsqDw1+iyj+wWUC7pLK/BiXUwg/lzGTMYtmOtwYnv2Gjd n+EvzVVKjMYt1BP040dyUUQIYZOisfpGVy/9UjwgNbA5u7RzNVZEkGAxW3QV5W1y 0JYEZ2BrMqt4fnsszHVUEx0iRqV7uAjk9BZf+PsHGNjjap6ILY1CDk8HMk0A0COX BTf3yQoET2RtO1ZorzbTmfjZ6RXDi19ZCshu3ysGQsCRHcYp/XDn7pSUJ/4AdQPv CbqskMSEDmArglBz8Xjvyi+EOsnZSLmB8OOYqnFYzdrOXdyoYs4+3kbmjA1vRsgp KoYI0bzkiQr5nJcSILLQ2S0pAv5EtoMjV5gloA5uxjuE3FhOG9n6YsOhp+5PHeWr 3p19FEhvefCbj8RbANFhDyOlfDRuTC406L7oUMWiUfmMpsHG5Fj6MlFXH+LG9WxV g0zTDp3bilxRAU+yku0enu6JjkrVwwDlHBet0Z4BP8W4s2tIPk1128PEK9kAjPxP eEPu/ZP3tGrcR2HGwteZAswUmclP1KwByNpInLfiBPzm/Oj2RN9Wfb0Cq5h/xuVP jsEXneynKwXS2O+AbP0iywtC8W65DRepVqFuoaOi+NSkvlRcede2ff/TjdC7+zYe IP3dDKunEZyqneV7go2I8dwM8earUJyZt5hrXvhmmJiI4MM5u1s= =nzN2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@sel4.systems To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@sel4.systems
