CMSC 414 Computer (and Network) Security Lecture 11 Jonathan Katz

advertisement

CMSC 414 Computer (and Network) Security Lecture 11

Jonathan Katz

Midterm?

 Will be held Oct 21, in class  Will cover everything up to and including the preceding lecture (Oct 16)  Includes all reading posted on the class syllabus!

Newsgroup

 Send questions to newsgroup if the answer would be of interest to other students  (If you want to reach me, send email)

Security policies

 “Military security policy” is primarily concerned with confidentiality – Does not exclude other concerns…  “Commercial security policy” is primarily concerned with integrity (think: banking industry) – E.g., consistent transactions – The question of “trust” is much harder than the question of confidentiality

A few words about trust

 Everything rests on certain assumptions…  E.g., sys admin applies patch; has this improved security? – Assumptions • Patch was not tampered with • Patch itself works correctly • Patch will work correctly in new environment • Patch installed/configured correctly • Sys admin trustworthy

Access control

 Discretionary access control – User can allow/deny access to objects – Also called identity-based access control  Mandatory access control – System-wide mechanism allows/denies access – E.g., root may have read access to all files – Also called rule-based access control

Policy languages

 Language for representing security policy  High-level policy languages – Formal specification of policy – Example: deny(x op x) when b – E.g., deny(file.read) when (file.getname() = “/etc/passwd”)

Policy languages

 Low-level policy languages – Explicit system commands that mandate certain policy – E.g., chmod, xhost

Example security policy

 See book…

Covert channels

 Information may be leaked in unexpected ways – E.g., timing difference between login with incorrect username or incorrect password – Error messages (e.g., learn filenames) – Side effects (e.g., values of other variables) – Printers, monitors, external hardware  These should be taken into account when designing security mechanism/policy

“Precision” of a mechanism

 The precision of a mechanism is a measure of how overly-restrictive the mechanism is with respect to the policy – I.e., due to preventing things that are allowed  Unfortunately, it is impossible (in general) to develop a “maximally-precise” mechanism for an arbitrary policy

Assumptions/trust

 Both policies and mechanisms make certain assumptions, and determinations of “trust” – Important to recognize this – Occasionally re-think these assumptions

Confidentiality policies (Chapter 5)

Bell-LaPadula model

 Security classes with linear ordering  Subjects have

security clearance

 Objects have

security classification

 Prevent read access to objects with security classification higher than the subject’s security clearance

Access control

 Can combine Bell-LaPadula model with discretionary access control as well – Simple security condition: S can read O if and only if l o  l s and S has discretionary read access to O

Potential problems?

 What if I have clearance to read a file, but copy it into an unclassified location?

– Potential security breach  *-property – S can write O if and only if l s discretionary write access to O  l o and S has  “Read down; write up”

Basic security theorem

 If a system begins in a secure state, and always preserves the simple security condition and the *-property, then the system will always remain in a secure state

Categories

 We can extend the model by adding categories to each security classification – A category describes a kind of information – Objects may be in multiple categories; subjects may have access to multiple categories • May be represented as a lattice – “Need to know” principle

Security levels

 Each security classification and category form a

security level

– Informally, a subject can read an object only if (1) the subject’s security clearance are at least the security classification of the object; and (2) the subject’s categories include the categories of the object

More formally…

 Say (L, C) dominates (L’, C’) if: – L’  L and C’  C  This modifies the simple security condition as follows: – S can read O if and only if the security level of S dominates the security level of O (and S has discretionary read access to O)

Similarly…

 The *-property is modified as follows: – S can write to O if and only if the security level of O dominates the security level of S (and S has discretionary write access to O) – Basic security theorem modified accordingly  Note that if A does not dominate B, this does not imply that B dominates A

Communicating down…

 How to communicate from a higher security level to a lower one?

– Maximum security level and current security level – Maximum security level must always dominate the current security level – Reduce security level to write down…

Controversy about BL model

 Does the basic security theorem say anything meaningful?

– Or is it just a tautology?

 In any case, the Bell-LaPadula model is useful

Integrity policies (Chapter 6)

Some requirements/assumptions

 Users will not write their own programs – Will use existing programs and databases  Programs will be written/tested on a nonproduction system  Special process must be followed to install new program on production system

Requirements, continued…

 The special installation process is controlled and audited  Auditors must have access to both system state and system logs

Some corollaries…

 “Separation of duty” – Basically, have multiple people check any critical functions (e.g., software installation)  “Separation of function” – Develop new programs on a separate system  Auditing – Recovery/accountability

Commercial vs. military systems

 The Bell-LaPadula model does not work as well for commercial systems – Users given access to data as needed – Would require large number of categories and classifications – Decentralized handling of security clearances – Desire to release

some

information

Download