Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

kernel: Assess IMA use in Bottlerocket #2707

Closed
foersleo opened this issue Jan 6, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

kernel: Assess IMA use in Bottlerocket #2707

foersleo opened this issue Jan 6, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
area/core Issues core to the OS (variant independent) status/icebox Things we think would be nice but are not prioritized

Comments

@foersleo
Copy link
Contributor

foersleo commented Jan 6, 2023

In #2569 we inherited a lot of config changes from our kernel upstream Amazon Linux. While going through these we found some changes to the hashing algorithms and settings for IMA.

As we currently do not use IMA in our bottlerocket configurations we might be better off disabling IMA support for good. As we do not configure ima to be enabled on the command line we do not need to act directly, but track this here for further research.

@foersleo foersleo added status/research This issue is being researched area/core Issues core to the OS (variant independent) labels Jan 6, 2023
@foersleo foersleo self-assigned this Jan 6, 2023
@foersleo
Copy link
Contributor Author

foersleo commented Feb 2, 2023

IMA is a kernel feature that can be used to ensure a file has not been changed from a known good state before executing it. This is done through hashing the file and noting down the known hashes in kernel memory, validating the hash before executing the file.

We are currently not using it with Bottlerocket and the overhead is probably not worth the effort given that we are working from an immutable file system, which is going to be further hardened through secure boot validated (#2501).

Right now it does not hurt to have ima enabled. Without a policy it will not measure or validate any files. I am not sure if we want to keep it around for possible future runtime validation or if we want to remove it to minimize our built code base.

@foersleo foersleo added status/icebox Things we think would be nice but are not prioritized and removed status/research This issue is being researched labels Feb 2, 2023
@foersleo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Removed IMA with #2789

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/core Issues core to the OS (variant independent) status/icebox Things we think would be nice but are not prioritized
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant