gentoo-hardened April 2009 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > gentoo-hardened archives
gentoo-hardened: Re: [gentoo-hardened] Some advise regarding rec

Re: [gentoo-hardened] Some advise regarding recompiling an entire hardened systems

From: basile <basile_at_nospam>
Date: Mon Apr 20 2009 - 18:04:53 GMT
To: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org


Thomas Sachau wrote: > basile schrieb: >
>> Mansour Moufid wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> basile schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, a have a couple of question is for Gordon and Nedd regarding >>>>> rebuilding an entire desktop system with emerge -e world, both amd64 >>>>> and >>>>> i686. I'm mostly worried about the security implications of the >>>>> choices I'm making and I'm not 100% sure of my understanding. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Regarding choice of compiler. gcc-config -l gives >>>>> >>>>> [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6 >>>>> [2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardenednopie >>>>> [3] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardenednopiessp >>>>> [4] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardenednossp >>>>> [5] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-vanilla >>>>> [6] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.2 >>>>> >>>>> My understanding is that [1] is fully hardened and that [2]-[5] are >>>>> exactly what they say, respectively no pie, no pie nor ssp, no ssp and >>>>> fully vanilla. My confusion is about 4.1.2. What hardening is present >>>>> in it? (Did some hardening which wasn't present in gcc-3 make it to >>>>> gcc-4 vanilla?) What's the best practice here? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You are right with gcc-3.4.6-r2. How did you install gcc-4? It should >>>> be masked as that version does >>>> not have any builtin hardened features, so is only a normal, >>>> none-hardened gcc-4.1.2 >>>> >>>> >>> This can happen when using a non-hardened stage3 tarball during the >>> install, then switching to the hardened profile later. >>> >>> I've noticed it's not immediately clear where to get hardened stages >>> in the documentation. For those wondering, the mirror URL can be found >>> in the topic on #gentoo-hardened, i.e.: >>> http://gentoo.osuosl.org/releases/${ARCH}/2008.0/stages/hardened/ >>> >>> >>>
>> I followed a variation of the upgrade process discussed here:
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/toolchain-upgrade-guide.xml
>>
>> The differences are I used binutils-2.18 and glibc-2.8_p20080602-r1
>>
>> I understand that its a VERY EARLY draft, but it proceeded without any
>> problems on both i686 and amd64. I'm pretty sure I didn't loose PIE,
>> but I'm not so sure about SSP. I'm playing around now with
>> -fstack-protector-all in my CFLAGS.
>> >>
>>
>>>>> 2) Regarding the choice of profiles on amd64. I have >>>>> >>>>> [6] hardened/amd64 >>>>> [7] hardened/amd64/multilib * >>>>> [10] hardened/linux/amd64 >>>>> >>>>> I'm using the multilib and I'm wondering what the security implications >>>>> of this decision. Also, should I be thinking about the newer [10] on >>>>> amd64? What about the similar choice on i686? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks guys. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What security implications should be there? >>>> The newer [10] is still experimental and may change without warning. >>>> Use either [6] or [7] for now. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Sachau >>>> >>>> Gentoo Linux Developer >>>> >>>> >>>>
>> I remember reading about lots of security bugs with emulating
>> libraries. I just googled for it to remind myself. So I'm wondering
>> whether profile 6 is better than 7.
>>
> > There may be open bugs with those emul-linux-* packages which currently provide some basic 32bit > libs, but they are not installed by using the profile nor are you forced to use them. If your > reading was about something different, please specify it. > > >
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/multilib -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 USA (716) 829-8197