Anthony Lineberry on /dev/mem Rootkits
At Black Hat Europe in mid-April 2009, Anthony Lineberry presented an interesting paper on how attackers with root privileges might use a /dev/mem rootkit, hiding their attacks by directly altering kernel memory. Although not a completely new technique, Anthony's BHE presentation put it back in the spotlight. In addition, Lineberry described proof-of-concept tools he's developing to demonstrate how this technique could be exploited in the real world.
On the one hand, once attackers have gained root privileges on your system, it's game over—the attackers have complete control, and all hope for further defense and mitigation on your part is gone. Looked at from that viewpoint, the attackers' ability to write directly to kernel memory isn't too radically different from, or worse than, other things they can do as root.
But, on the other hand, even if your system suffers root compromise, you still want some chance of at least detecting the compromise in order to do something about it. Because the purpose of rootkits is to prevent that, it behooves you to take whatever precautions you can against them. So in this sense, new rootkit techniques actually are very worthy of our attention and concern.
In this article, I provide some background on rootkits and /dev/mem, and Anthony Lineberry sheds further light on /dev/mem rootkits, in the form of a conversation we recently had.
So, what exactly is a rootkit? Simply put, a rootkit is hostile code that conceals or misrepresents a system's state, as presented to its administrator.
The “kit” part of the term reflects the fact that early UNIX rootkits took the form of collections of one-for-one replacements of system commands, such as ls and ps. The replacement commands behaved, for the most part, like the commands they replaced, except they were selectively blind. A rootkit's ls command, for example, might omit the attacker's directory /...my_evil_tools in file listings it displays, and a rootkit's ps command might omit the attacker's program erase_recent_logs from process listings. In other words, rootkits are designed to conceal the activities of system attackers once they've achieved a foothold on a target system.
One problem with first-generation rootkits was that their functionality was limited to those specific commands replaced by rootkit versions. What if the system administrator used some command or utility rather than ls to view the contents of a directory containing attack evidence?
Another problem was detectability. If a system is protected with system integrity software like Tripwire, which detects and reports on authorized changes to system files, it can be difficult to replace system commands without being detected.
Both these problems were largely “solved” with the advent of Loadable Kernel Module (LKM) rootkits. An LKM rootkit, as the name implies, consists of one or more kernel modules loaded by attacks. An LKM rootkit re-maps the actual system calls (also known as kernel symbols) accessed by system utilities, leaving the system commands themselves unchanged. Needless to say, this is a very powerful technique.
As powerful as LKM rootkits still are, they nonetheless can be detected, for example, by comparing the kernel's system map (a file showing the correct memory addresses of all supported system calls) with the actual system call addresses in memory. On a non-LKM-infested system, those addresses should be the same as in the system map.
That, then, is the problem space in which rootkits operate—concealing attack activity and results in a way that is not itself conspicuous. But, what is /dev/mem, and how is this particular kernel interface different from an LKM?
/dev/mem is a character device that provides root-privileged processes in userspace (that is, programs other than the kernel or kernel modules) direct access to physical memory. /dev/kmem is the same thing, but it uses “virtual” memory addresses like the kernel uses rather than the “raw” addresses of physical memory. Unlike /proc/kcore, which serves a similar function to developers and kernel hackers, /dev/mem and /dev/kmem grant not only read access, but also write access to memory.
You might be forgiven for assuming that, like /dev/eth0, /dev/hda and other special files in /dev, /dev/mem is an essential interface for userspace applications that need to communicate with the kernel. As it happens, this isn't necessarily the case. Besides kernel developers, historically, the other major user of /dev/mem is the X Window System, parts of which still use /dev/mem to access video adapters' memory and control registers.
At least in the case of /dev/kmem, some people think these particular devices are of greater use to attackers than for more legitimate purposes. As far back as 2005, Jonathan Corbet of lwn.net said, “It has been suggested that rootkits are the largest user community for this kind of access” (see Resources for the full context; he was speaking specifically of /dev/kmem).
Hopefully, I'm not overstating this case, because being neither a kernel developer nor an X Windows System expert, I would not presume to argue for abolishing /dev/mem or /dev/kmem myself. Rather, I'm trying to put all of this into a useful context—which brings us to Anthony Lineberry.
Anthony Lineberry is a security software engineer and Linux security researcher. The concept of using /dev/kmem to rootkit Linux systems was first written about by Silvio Cesare in 1998 and by devik in Phrack magazine in 2001. Besides bringing this seldom-discussed attack vector back to people's attention, Anthony Lineberry has uncovered some new ways of tricking the kernel to allocate memory for injected code. Anthony and I chatted via e-mail immediately before and after his Black Hat Europe presentation.
MB: Hi, Anthony. Thanks for taking the time to talk to Linux Journal! It looks like this attack has ramifications very similar to those of the Loadable Kernel Module rootkit. Obviously, this isn't the best forum for a detailed dissertation, but could you describe your /dev/mem attack for our readers?
AL: We are essentially using the mem device to inject code directly into the kernel. /dev/mem is just a character device that provides an interface to physically addressable memory. Seeking to an offset and performing a read will read from that physical location in memory. Translating virtual addresses in the kernel to the physical addresses they map to, you can use simple reads and writes to this device to hot-patch code directly into the kernel. Using various heuristics, you can locate various important structures in the kernel and manipulate them. At that point, you are able to control behavior and manipulate almost anything inside the kernel, including system call tables, process lists, network I/O and so on.
MB: Does the attacker have to be root to locate and manipulate these structures in memory?
AL: Yes, you would definitely have to be root to be able to read/write to this device and manipulate any structures inside the kernel.
MB: How does this differ from LKM rootkits?
AL: LKMs, in general, will create a lot of “noise” when loaded into the kernel. Using these techniques, we avoid all of that because of the fact that we are injecting directly into physical memory. Using an LKM does make it much easier to develop a rootkit. All of the effort can go into the actual code, rather than having to determine reliably where everything is inside the kernel. Although we can read/parse the export table inside kernel memory to locate almost all exported symbols.
The general suggested way to mitigate kernel rootkits for Linux is to configure a non-modular kernel and have all devices being used compiled in. In this scenario, we are still able to get code into kernel space.
MB: Have you tested the attack in virtualized environments? Does virtualized memory behave any differently?
AL: Yes, these methods will work in a virtualized environment. The main difference I ran into was that some special instructions handled by hypervisors behaved differently. Specifically in this case, the lidt instruction I used for locating the IDT/System Call Table in memory would return a bogus virtual address, but these problems were mostly trivial to overcome.
MB: What are the best defenses against /dev/mem attacks?
AL: The best defense is to enable CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM (originally called CONFIG_NONPROMISC_DEVMEM in 2.6.26) in the kernel, which limits all operations on the mem device to the first 256 pages (1MB) of physical memory. This limitation will allow things like X and DOSEMU, which use this device legitimately to still function properly, but keep anyone else from reading outside of those low areas of memory. Unfortunately, the default configuration leaves this protection disabled.
MB: Have you contacted any of the major Linux distributors (Red Hat, Novell and so forth)? Have any of them committed to enabling this setting in their default kernels?
AL: No, [although] many major distros do enable this setting by default in their releases. I would like to plan on compiling a list of who does/doesn't enable this.
As Anthony said, short of ripping /dev/mem and /dev/kmem out of your kernel (which almost certainly would break things, especially in the X Window System), the best defense is to compile CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM=y in your kernel. The default kernels for Fedora and Ubuntu systems already have this option compiled in. RHEL goes a step further, by using an SELinux policy that also restricts access to /dev/mem.
If you don't know whether your system's kernel was compiled with CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM=y, there are several different ways to find out. Depending on your Linux distribution, your system's running kernel's configuration file may be stored in /boot, with a name like config-2.6.28-11-generic. If so, you can grep that file for DEVMEM. If not, your kernel may have a copy of its configuration in the form of a file called /proc/config.gz, in which case you can use the command:
zcat /proc/config.gz | grep DEVMEM
Otherwise, you need to obtain source code for your running kernel, do a make oldconfig (which actually extracts your running kernel's configuration), and check the resulting .config file. In any of these cases, if CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM is set to n rather than y, you need to compile a custom kernel.
To do so, after having done make oldconfig, which even if you already knew your kernel lacked CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM enablement is a good idea, because you're probably interested in only changing CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM and leaving the rest of the kernel the same, you can do either make menuconfig or make xconfig. In the resulting menu, select kernel hacking, look for the option Filter access to /dev/mem, set it to y, exit, save your configuration, and re-compile.
If this entire kernel-compiling process is new to you, refer to your Linux distribution's official documentation for more detailed instructions. The process of compiling a custom kernel is, nowadays, rather distribution-specific, especially if you want to generate a custom RPM or deb package (which is the least disruptive way to actually install a custom kernel on RPM- and deb-package-based systems).
“Malicious Code Injection via /dev/mem” by Anthony Lineberry: dtors.org/papers/malicious-code-injection-via-dev-mem.pdf
“Alice in Kernel Land: Malicious Code Injection via /dev/mem” (slides to Anthony Lineberry's Black Hat Europe 2009 presentation): dtors.org/papers/injection-via-dev-mem.pdf
“Runtime Kernel kmem Patching” by Silvio Cesare: doc.bughunter.net/rootkit-backdoor/kmem-patching.html
“Linux on-the-fly kernel patching without LKM” by sd and devik, Phrack 58 (December 28, 2001): www.trust-us.ch/phrack/show.php@p=58&a=7
“Linux Kernel Rootkits” by Rainer Wichmann: www.la-samhna.de/library/rootkits/index.html
“Who needs /dev/kmem?” by Jonathan Corbet: lwn.net/Articles/147901
“The details on loading rootkits via /dev/mem” by Jonathan Corbet: lwn.net/Articles/328695
Mick Bauer (firstname.lastname@example.org) is Network Security Architect for one of the US's largest banks. He is the author of the O'Reilly book Linux Server Security, 2nd edition (formerly called Building Secure Servers With Linux), an occasional presenter at information security conferences and composer of the “Network Engineering Polka”.