Re: security model

On 7/12/25 17:41, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> Either you plan much farther ahead than the common cybercrook or we 
>> are talking about targeted attacks instead of the much common "spam" 
>> attacks.  (That said, GnuPG is *supposed* to stand up against 
>> targeted attacks.)
>
> Correct, I'm talking about targeted attacks. Random drive-bys are not 
> of much personal or professional concern. This is of course my risk 
> model, and I don't expect it to be relevant to anyone else. :)

Both *should* be of concern, since a targeted attacker could certainly 
use "drive-by" techniques, both to evade detection and possibly your 
defenses, if you are so focused on targeted attacks that you miss something.

>> The catch is that the "juicy" stuff is typically *in* the user's 
>> account on a single-user box... and therefore accessible without 
>> elevation if Mallory is hitting the client.
>
> If it's a single-user box, sure. Of course, many single-user boxes 
> make privilege escalation ridiculously easy, so why not? (Everyone who 
> has put NOPASSWD: ALL into their sudoers file, please raise your hands...)

I just checked to make sure that is *not* in there...  (I would not be 
surprised to find that some distributions have it by default...)

>> Why risk the exposure (and correction) of a privilege escalation 
>> exploit when everything Mallory wants is right there without it?
>
> Because even on single-user boxes, persistence and cleaning up one's 
> tracks is much easier done with escalation than without. If 
> persistence and concealment is part of the attack profile, you need 
> escalation.
>
>> In my model, Mallory's ideal goal is make off with your data and/or 
>> private keys and/or an unauthorized signature without leaving a trace 
>> aside from possible intentional tampering.
>
> Then Mallory needs escalation. If you're going to do things like look 
> through the system logs and scrub them appropriately, you need to 
> escalate.
>
> This is why I believe a competent Mallory always escalates. It's 
> simply not possible to do a thorough cleanup job without escalation.
If Mallory only wants a smash-and-grab, then persistence is a needless 
risk.  Client exploits typically do *not* produce log entries in the 
first place, so there is nothing to clean up.

In fact, log scrubbing might *be* an indicator of an intrusion: you full 
well that your browser crashed with SIGSEGV, where the hell is the 
segfault in the log?

>> In that environment, a smartcard is not sufficient; you need an 
>> isolated box.
>
> Frankly, I think you need a lot more than a smartcard, too, starting 
> with a radical rethink of "why am I hosting such valuable files on a 
> machine connected to the internet?"  :)

Consider the scenario of software release signing keys. Obviously the 
signature must reach a network-connected machine in order to publish 
it.  Mallory wants to sign a Trojan horse with your key.  You want to 
prevent that, or at least detect the intrusion immediately and announce 
that a spurious signature exists before Mallory can smear your good name.


-- Jacob


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel