[PATCH V9 3/3] audit: add audit by children of executable path

[Paul Moore]

On August 6, 2015 5:11:50 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 06, 2015 04:24:58 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 04:29:38 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > This adds the ability to audit the actions of children of a
> > > not-yet-running
> > > process.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a split-out of a heavily modified version of a patch originally
> > > submitted by Eric Paris with some ideas from Peter Moody.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cc: Peter Moody <peter at hda3.com>
> > > Cc: Eric Paris <eparis at redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >  include/uapi/linux/audit.h |    1 +
> > >  kernel/auditfilter.c       |    5 +++++
> > >  kernel/auditsc.c           |   11 +++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > I'm still not really comfortable with that loop and since there hasn't been
> > a  really convincing use case I'm going to pass on this patch for right
> > now.  If someone comes up with a *really* compelling case in the future
> > I'll reconsider it.
>
> Its the same reason strace has a -f option. Sometimes you need to also see
> what the children did. For example, maybe you want to audit file access to a
> specific directory and several cgi-bin programs can get there. You could write
> a rule for apache and be done. Or maybe, you have an app that lets people have
> shell access and you need to see files accessed or connections opened. Or maybe
> its a control panel application with helper scripts and you need to see
> changes that its making. Or maybe you have a program that is at risk of being
> compromised and you want to see if someone gets a shell from it. There are a
> lot of cases where it could be useful.
>
> -Steve
>
> --
> Linux-audit mailing list
> Linux-audit at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not currently convinced that there is 
enough value in this to offset the risk I feel the loop presents. I 
understand the use cases that you are mentioning, the are the same as the 
last time we discussed this, but I'm going to need something better than that.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com