ECryptfs Security Audit

Imagine yourself a linux lab operator at a university somewhere and TrueCrypt is installed in the lab computers for students to use to access their TrueCrypt volumes.Most students will expect to have access to TrueCrypt,the GUI application as that is how most people use TrueCrypt.

Now,how exactly can you set up TrueCrypt so that a student could not use it to get root shell as i specified?.

Simple answer,you cant.

Yes,TrueCrypt gives you an option to pass the "nosuid" option.But thats like having a system that requires a password but gives you an option to not provide it with the default behavior being the option of not providing it.

The student who will sit on that computer lab with a TrueCrypt GUI window open will be the one who gets to decide if they want to set the option or not and with the option being off by default,the student will just execute the exploit without changing anything.

I should also say that i am mhogomchungu,the founder of zuluCrypt[1] that does block device encryption and also general purpose mounting with zuluMount,a tool that ships with zuluCrypt and hence i have looked at this problem very closely and for years now and i have closely followed how other FOSS projects reason with problems associated with mount command usage and their implementations to work around the problems.There are also other bunch or wrongs that TrueCrypt is doing and i know this from looking at how things are implemented "from inside" and not how they appear from outside.

Somebody using zuluCrypt to gain root shell and i will take full responsibility for it,somebody use udisks to get root shell access and i will place responsibility fully on udisks and i am fairly certain they will do the same.

[1] https://code.google.com/p/zulucrypt/

>This issue isn't unique to TrueCrypt. This was mentioned upthread by wglb [0], but you brushed him aside with talk of "standard practice"

It is not unique to TrueCrypt.It is an issue that arise when a front end to "mount" command BADLY uses it and TrueCrypt BADLY uses "mount" command in a way that leads to privilege escalation as i explained it.

Any front end to "mount" command that uses the command in a BAD way will end up with the same BAD behavior.We are talking about TrueCrypt here and its BAD usage of "mount" command.

If you can use zuluCrypt and gain root shell,i will take responsibility for it and fix the problem.There will be no finger pointing of who is at fault,you got the elevated privileges through my tool and that makes it my problem and it should be me who should fix it.

The elevated privileges were acquired through TrueCrypt and hence its TrueCrypt's fault and TrueCrypt need to fix it or users of TrueCrypt should be made aware of it so that they can guard themselves against.It should be noted that you failed to show they could do so.It should be noted that i mentioned this initially so that those who do TrueCrypt code review will know of it and maybe do something about it.The talk of "its not unique to TrueCrypt" seems to me like an attempt to deflect attention away from the problem as it exists in TrueCrypt.

I did not brush him off,i tried to explain something,maybe you missed it.Let me say it differently.If ext4 has a mount option "--foo" and the "standard practice" is for normal users not to be allowed to use this mount option and you have a mounting tool that chooses to ignore this standard practice and hence a normal user mounts the volume with the mount option and gain root privileges,then the problem will be on your mounting tool and it will be your fault and it will be you who will need to fix the problem.The problem will not be on ext4 file system or on this option.You cause the problem,its your fault.What he tried to do is place fault on linux and make it sound like TrueCrypt is a victim of it and i attempted to place the blame back on TrueCrypt by showing the fault lying in TrueCrypt's lack of following "best practices".I hope that makes sense.

When it comes to mounting in linux,things are done in a specific way and if you create a mounting tool and do things differently,then any breakage or privilege escalations will be on you and it will be your fault.Trying to deflect the problem will only make things bad for you and people will loose trust in your tool.

I am writing this as a person who has spent years thinking about these stuff and write code that implements them and not somebody who has spent minutes thinking about them.

About your second point.What you missed is that you can not do that kind of modification on other people's machines.Making this kind of changes behind user's back should be an offense deserving of being shot.

You seem to be missing a critical detail here. Using mount unsafely requires you to already be root. Mounting a volume with truecrypt does not[1] require you to be root. But it invokes mount for you, as root, in an unsafe way.

[1]AFAIK, based on the video, and knowing that it doesn't require admin on windows

From what I've seen on Linux, TrueCrypt is run as root. The two other ways it could do mounting are:

1) Use FUSE's ability to (as a non-root user) mount user-readable devices in a user-owned directory.

2) Do as Docker does and talk to over a socket to a daemon running as root.

From what I've seen the official TrueCrypt software does neither of these things. What video are you talking about? Perhaps I missed something?

On Windows, it's not uncommon for an unprivileged process to talk to a root-equivalent Service to perform privileged operations.

Nevermind, I tested myself and properly read the post[1] after getting some sleep. Truecrypt does need root and he gave sudo rights for it. Otherwise it asks for a suitable password when used to mount.

So this isn't a security flaw, this is a feature request for non-root mounting.

Except you can already use FUSE so I'm not sure what the complaint is at all. Don't let people run commands as root that weren't designed for it.

Sorry about the noise.

[1] http://vinicius777.github.io/blog/2014/07/14/truecrypt-privi...