[RFC PATCH ghak10 2/3] audit: Add the audit_adjtime() function

[Steve Grubb]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:57:37 AM EDT Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> 2018-06-18 20:39 GMT+02:00 Steve Grubb <sgrubb at redhat.com>:
> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 8:45:22 AM EDT Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> >> This patch adds a new function that shall be used to log any
> >> modification of the system's clock (via the adjtimex() syscall).
> >> 
> >> The function logs an audit record of type AUDIT_TIME_ADJUSTED with the
> >> following fields:
> >> * txmodes  (the 'modes' field of struct timex)
> >> * txoffset (the 'offset' field of struct timex)
> >> * txfreq   (the 'freq' field of struct timex)
> >> * txmaxerr (the 'maxerror' field of struct timex)
> >> * txesterr (the 'esterror' field of struct timex)
> >> * txstatus (the 'status' field of struct timex)
> >> * txconst  (the 'constant' field of struct timex)
> >> * txsec, txusec (the 'tv_sec' and 'tv_usec' fields of the 'time' field
> >> of struct timex (respectively))
> >> * txtick   (the 'tick' field of struct timex)
> > 
> > Are all of these fields security relevant? Primarily what we need to know
> > is if time is being adjusted. This is relevant because a bad guy may
> > adjust system time to make something appear to happen earlier or later
> > than it really did which make correlation hard or impossible.
> 
> This is still an open question for me... On the one hand, we might
> want to know exactly what the bad guy was trying to do ("He changed
> the offset to 500 ms." vs. just "He adjusted the clock."), on the
> other hand, we may not really care and consider it yet another junk
> data in the logs... A possible compromise could be to log only
> relevant fields (see 'Possible improvements' in the commit message).
> Assuming ntpd or other authorized applications would only modify
> one/few variables at a time, this would add only a few fields to the
> record each time.

I think we want the modes field so that we know what was changed. But do we 
really need to know maxerror or status? I think we should limit this to the 
modes and any value of a time adjustment. 

> Note that this new auxiliary record gets only logged on *modifying*
> operations, which should not be that frequent, and thus it shouldn't
> be a problem to output a bit of potentially useful information.

We're after just security information.

> That said, I don't mind logging just an empty record if that is
> preferred.

An empty buffer doesn't tell us what was adjusted.

Thanks,
-Steve