Export of Github issues for [a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker).

# [\#103 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/103) `open`: add disabling CONFIG_AIO (legacy POSIX AIO) as a recommendation

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) opened issue at [2024-01-08 05:31](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/103):

POSIX AIO is a legacy feature and adds significant attack surface, albeit not nearly as much as IO_URING. POSIX AIO was poorly designed and hardly got any usage. The glibc and musl implementation doesn't use the kernel implementation and it requires a dedicated library, but is essentially obsolete now beyond it being used before io_uring was an option and still not being replaced in rare applications using it. Essentially everything using it can fall back to not using it via thread pools though, with little impact to most people. High performance software would be using io_uring anyway, not this legacy approach.

As an example, Android used AIO for implementing the fastboot, adb and mtp USB gadget protocols with fallback to synchronous IO but then moved to using io_uring for fastboot and also adopted it for snapuserd too. io_uring is limited to fastbootd/snapuserd via SELinux, but AIO was allowed for everything. It would be best if they moved adb and mtp to io_uring too and removed the AIO system calls from the seccomp-bpf whitelist. Apps can't use io_uring and none use AIO in practice, particularly since they provide no bindings for it for apps to use, only the base OS.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#102 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/102) `open`: drop check for dependency-only CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS due to Clang
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) opened issue at [2024-01-08 05:10](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/102):

It makes sense to check for the functionality provided by the plugins if there's no Clang alternative, but it doesn't make sense to fail from an irrelevant dependency for those features being unavailable. For example, using CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO is more secure than the STRUCTLEAK plugin anyway, and has insignificant performance overhead. There are already checks for the latent entropy, RANDSTRUCT and STACKLEAK plugins, but there could be alternatives to those for Clang, and not having GCC_PLUGINS enabled is irrelevant.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 21:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/102#issuecomment-1894574347):

@thestinger, I agree. I'll think and return with the solution.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#101 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/101) `closed`: CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS check is wrong for arm64
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) opened issue at [2024-01-08 04:37](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/101):

The expected value on arm64 for a 48-bit address space (4 level page tables with 4k pages) is 33, not 32, which makes the check fail even though it's higher. arm64 has configurable page size and page table levels. Typical Linux devices have 4k pages and 3 level page tables resulting in a 39-bit address space, providing much less ASLR entropy as the maximum. A hardened kernel should use 4 level page tables resulting in a 48-bit address space and an expected value of 33 here. 4k pages also provide more granularity for guard pages, although it's much less important on ARMv9 devices supporting MTE such as the Pixel 8 where a reserved tag can be used for 16 byte granularity guards rather than using pages.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 21:37](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/101#issuecomment-1894555189):

Hi @thestinger,

I agree with you, currently the code already does this.

Quoting [__init__.py#L328](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/blob/master/kernel_hardening_checker/__init__.py#L328):
```
        # hackish refinement of the CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS check
        mmap_rnd_bits_max = parsed_kconfig_options.get('CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX', None)
        if mmap_rnd_bits_max:
            override_expected_value(config_checklist, 'CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS', mmap_rnd_bits_max)
        else:
            # remove the CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS check to avoid false results
            print('[-] Can\'t check CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS without CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX')
            config_checklist[:] = [o for o in config_checklist if o.name != 'CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS']
```
So `kernel-hardening-checker` creates this recommendation dynamically.

The example output for `arm64_defconfig_6.6.config`:
```
[+] Kconfig file to check: kernel_hardening_checker/config_files/defconfigs/arm64_defconfig_6.6.config
[+] Detected microarchitecture: ARM64
[+] Detected kernel version: 6.6
[+] Detected compiler: GCC 130001
...
CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS               |kconfig|     33     |    my    | harden_userspace | FAIL: "18"
```
I'll create a new tag very soon, and this will get into the new release of the tool.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) commented at [2024-01-16 21:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/101#issuecomment-1894558946):

I can also start testing with the git revision now before making recommendations, it just didn't occur to me that it had been a long time since the last stable release and I didn't see recent commits for those things.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 21:48](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/101#issuecomment-1894569310):

@thestinger, thank you for testing!

Preparing a release of the tool corresponding to the new kernel version takes a lot of effort.

I hope to find resources to do that more often.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#100 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/100) `closed`: CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO has a completely different meaning for arm64 and recommending disabling it doesn't make sense there
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) opened issue at [2024-01-08 04:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/100):

On arm64, CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO determines whether the vdso is mapped in 32-bit processes at all. It's not a compatibility hack with security implications like it is on x86 but rather has a completely different meaning.

It makes sense to recommend disabling 32-bit ARM support as a whole (CONFIG_COMPAT), but there's no reason to recommend disabling this particular option.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 21:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/100#issuecomment-1894537837):

Hello @thestinger,

Yes, the code already describes the same thing.
Quoting [checks.py#L298](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/blob/master/kernel_hardening_checker/checks.py#L298):
```
    if arch in ('X86_64', 'X86_32'):
        l += [KconfigCheck('cut_attack_surface', 'kspp', 'COMPAT_VDSO', 'is not set')]
              # CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO disabled ASLR of vDSO only on X86_64 and X86_32;
              # on ARM64 this option has different meaning
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) commented at [2024-01-16 21:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/100#issuecomment-1894543152):

Ah, it's because https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/commit/22728555223c98630180c2f642cc7e369424bd8a isn't in a stable tag yet and I was using the Arch Linux package instead of the latest revision.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 21:31](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/100#issuecomment-1894544028):

Right! 
I'll create a new tag very soon, and this will get into the new release of the tool.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#99 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/99) `open`: skip CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS requirement when CONFIG_CFI_CLANG is set with CONFIG_CFI_PERMISSIVE disabled
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) opened issue at [2024-01-08 04:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/99):

CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS only checks that the notifier function pointer is in kernel text. CFI already does that for everything that's not excluded from it. CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS is obsolete when using CFI, and there should be no clear reason to enable it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) commented at [2024-01-16 20:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/99#issuecomment-1894462962):

This is partly motivated by CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS being buggy on some architectures. It works properly on x86 but we had issues with it on arm64 previously. It's the only user of `func_ptr_is_kernel_text` so there's little motivation for that function to work universally for such a niche feature that's no longer even useful if you use CFI. The whole feature is this:

```c
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS
		if (unlikely(!func_ptr_is_kernel_text(nb->notifier_call))) {
			WARN(1, "Invalid notifier called!");
			nb = next_nb;
			continue;
		}
#endif
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 20:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/99#issuecomment-1894479180):

@thestinger, thanks for the idea!

Added the commit  https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/commit/cd5bb8a0364e6a28b2d03a8ac0d7520194a9f07a.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 20:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/99#issuecomment-1894481143):

One moment, you are right, CFI_PERMISSIVE should be disabled as well.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 21:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/99#issuecomment-1894530696):

Added the commit https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/commit/65ff79dbe2c36347283d71d3fa1959030bf6838f.

Now the verbose result for checking this config ...
```
# CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS is not set
CONFIG_CFI_CLANG=y
CONFIG_CFI_PERMISSIVE=y
```
... looks like that:
```
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <<< OR >>>                                                                             | FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS                  |kconfig|     y      |   kspp   | self_protection  | FAIL: "is not set"
    <<< AND >>>                                                                            | FAIL: CONFIG_CFI_PERMISSIVE is not "is not set"
CONFIG_CFI_CLANG                        |kconfig|     y      |   kspp   | self_protection  | OK
CONFIG_CFI_PERMISSIVE                   |kconfig| is not set |   kspp   | self_protection  | FAIL: "y"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```
And the verbose result of checking this config...
```
# CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS is not set
CONFIG_CFI_CLANG=y
# CONFIG_CFI_PERMISSIVE is not set
```
... looks like that:
```
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <<< OR >>>                                                                             | OK: CONFIG_CFI_CLANG is "y"
CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS                  |kconfig|     y      |   kspp   | self_protection  | FAIL: "is not set"
    <<< AND >>>                                                                            | OK
CONFIG_CFI_CLANG                        |kconfig|     y      |   kspp   | self_protection  | OK
CONFIG_CFI_PERMISSIVE                   |kconfig| is not set |   kspp   | self_protection  | OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#98 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/98) `closed`: skip CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK requirement when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK is set
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) opened issue at [2024-01-08 04:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/98):

CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK only provides stack exhaustion detection after it's already too late and it can be bypassed. CONFIG_VMAP_STACK provides reliable detection of stack exhaustion and there shouldn't be any need for CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK with it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 20:08](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/98#issuecomment-1894435929):

Hello @thestinger,

As I remember, SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK checks the magic value at the end of the kernel thread stack, and VMAP_STACK adds guard pages near it. So they do a bit different things, but VMAP_STACK is more reliable.

I agree with your point.

Added the commit https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/commit/c0fc9e89d7a21dfd734bc6c3b946f835493502ca.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) commented at [2024-01-16 20:24](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/98#issuecomment-1894458928):

> As I remember, SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK checks the magic value at the end of the kernel thread stack, and VMAP_STACK adds guard pages near it. So they do a bit different things, but VMAP_STACK is more reliable.

Yes, SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK checks a magic value at certain times such as exiting the kernel back to userspace, at which point the exploit can already have succeeded. The attacker may also have been able to clobber the value so that it's not detected. VMAP_STACK directly detects it with memory protection, which combined with making sure no large stack frames or VLAs exist prevents an overflow past the guard.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#97 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/97) `open`: Get rid of CONFIG_DEBUG_CREDENTIALS
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/23581360?v=4" width="50">[Sporif](https://github.com/Sporif) opened issue at [2023-12-22 15:37](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/97):

This config has been removed recently.

[master](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ae1914174a63a558113e80d24ccac2773f9f7b2b) 

[stable](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-6.6.y&id=207f135d819344c03333246f784f6666e652e081)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1505226?u=0edff17ad0c4acebbd8660dc1854229d526a6dc4&v=4" width="50">[thestinger](https://github.com/thestinger) commented at [2024-01-08 04:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/97#issuecomment-1880362163):

The checking tool isn't only for the most recent kernel versions, and this was a mildly useful hardening feature despite not being designed as one. It would be possible to do a much better job, but people use what's available upstream.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2024-01-16 19:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/97#issuecomment-1894377361):

Thanks for the info!

Later, I'll add the dependency on the kernel version for the CONFIG_DEBUG_CREDENTIALS check.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#96 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/96) `open`: new tag?
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4741819?v=4" width="50">[asarubbo](https://github.com/asarubbo) opened issue at [2023-12-07 12:04](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/96):

Hello @a13xp0p0v

[kernel-hardening-checker](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker) it's really a great work!

I have recently added it into the [Gentoo tree](https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/151491904fa748c04cdff48a3884d52e18da9c0a) and I noticed that a lot of commits have been done after the last tag. Would you mind to issue a new minor release?
Thanks a lot

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-12-09 05:54](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/96#issuecomment-1848252596):

Hello @asarubbo, thanks for kind words!

I'm currently preparing a new release of the tool.  A new tag will appear soon.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#95 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/95) `closed`: Check for module force loading?
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/89150207?v=4" width="50">[vobst](https://github.com/vobst) opened issue at [2023-12-07 08:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/95):

Would it make sense to check for `CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_LOAD`? It could prevent attackers from loading slightly mismatching kernel modules. However, but it seems kind of redundant given that you already recommend disabling modules or enforcing signatures. Maybe it could be checked as a fall back if both stronger measures are disabled.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-12-09 05:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/95#issuecomment-1848251810):

Hello @vobst, thanks for the idea.

Added [e5f804e](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/commit/e5f804ede6ea7f66f674c2825396c15c216c718d).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#94 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/94) `merged`: add --kernel-version option

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1485263?v=4" width="50">[ffontaine](https://github.com/ffontaine) opened issue at [2023-11-29 16:46](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/94):

`--kernel-version` option will extract the version in `/proc/version`. This is especially useful on embedded systems where `config.gz` doesn't always contain the kernel version

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-12-01 13:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/94#issuecomment-1836135013):

Hello @ffontaine,

Nice idea, thanks!

I would ask for some small changes.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#93 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/93) `open`: added wsl config
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8870284?u=ec42118bfcab2ddd30e7fb094422d250164c3150&v=4" width="50">[mrkoykang](https://github.com/mrkoykang) opened issue at [2023-11-15 01:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/93):

added wsl config files

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-11-22 09:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/93#issuecomment-1822409439):

Hello @mrkoykang,

Thanks for the pull request.

1) These two kconfig files are mostly identical. How about adding only the more recent one?

2) Could you please add a link to this kconfig in [this file](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/blob/master/kernel_hardening_checker/config_files/links.txt)?

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#92 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/92) `open`: new make hardening.config available
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/77795961?v=4" width="50">[osevan](https://github.com/osevan) opened issue at [2023-11-06 00:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/92):

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/kernel/configs/hardening.config

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.7-Hardening

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-11-22 10:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/92#issuecomment-1822464512):

Hello @osevan,

Thanks for the links.

Need your opinion: how should `kernel-hardening-checker` use this new `make` target?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4741819?v=4" width="50">[asarubbo](https://github.com/asarubbo) commented at [2023-12-19 07:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/92#issuecomment-1862276038):

> Need your opinion: how should `kernel-hardening-checker` use this new `make` target?

Not sure I have understood at all the question, but just port these option into `kernel-hardening-checker` and update them from time to time is an option?

I mean to just monitor changes like this https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commits/master/kernel/configs/hardening.config


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#91 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/91) `open`: Modify requirements for Android configs
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65050545?u=3d095cc7726e6bbf544ea4857c4223033ea90921&v=4" width="50">[petervanvugt](https://github.com/petervanvugt) opened issue at [2023-10-30 19:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/91):

Android configs require various things that are currently disallowed in this tool. We can use CONFIG_ANDROID to detect Android configs and generate reports with fewer positives that cannot/should not be changed.


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-11-22 09:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/91#issuecomment-1822411251):

Hello @petervanvugt,

Nice idea, thanks.

Let's discuss some details.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#90 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/90) `merged`: Use /usr/bin/env in shebangs

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7258858?u=c524720e2844ffa8a2aa67944fde5af54031e06d&v=4" width="50">[SuperSandro2000](https://github.com/SuperSandro2000) opened issue at [2023-10-05 22:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/90):

This is guaranteed to work everything including NixOS

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-10-16 04:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/90#issuecomment-1763710410):

Merged. Thanks, @SuperSandro2000!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#89 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/89) `open`: Fix a false positive in REFCOUNT_FULL in recent 5.4.x

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4372440?v=4" width="50">[hlein](https://github.com/hlein) opened issue at [2023-09-22 03:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/89):

Extend VersionCheck to be able to take a three-tuple, x.y.z kernel version in order to properly recognise 5.4.208 as when this became the default behavior and thus CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL disappeared.


Closes: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/88

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-10-04 18:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/89#issuecomment-1747405606):

@hlein, thanks for your pull request.

I think you need to adapt  `detect_kernel_version()` to get the third number of the kernel version from the kconfig file.

One more aspect: you need to compare this number in the `check()` method of the `VersionCheck` class. Otherwise it will return wrong results.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4372440?v=4" width="50">[hlein](https://github.com/hlein) commented at [2023-10-04 18:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/89#issuecomment-1747427507):

> @hlein, thanks for your pull request.
> 
> I think you need to adapt `detect_kernel_version()` to get the third number of the kernel version from the kconfig file.

Oh, you are probably right. I didn't have access to the box or config in question any more, so fabricated some data I was testing against; my tests must have been incomplete / accidentally-successful.

> One more aspect: you need to compare this number in the `check()` method of the `VersionCheck` class. Otherwise it will return wrong results.

Oof, you're right. I think I had done things a different way before refactoring the `self.ver_expected_print` out, but then lost the check against `self.ver_expected[2]` when cleaning up. Ugh!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#88 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/88) `open`: False positive on CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL in recent 5.4.x kernels

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4372440?v=4" width="50">[hlein](https://github.com/hlein) opened issue at [2023-09-22 03:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/88):

Similar to https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30, `CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL` was removed from 5.4.x kernels starting with v5.4.208, because full refcount became always-on, in this commit:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-5.4.y&id=d0d583484d2ed9f5903edbbfa7e2a68f78b950b0

Currently we complain when it is not found, like:
`CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL      |kconfig|     y      |defconfig | self_protection  | FAIL: is not found`

I don't know an easier way to find which kernel first included that commit other than:

```
$ egrep url .git/config 
        url = https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
$ git tag --contains d0d583484d2ed9f5903edbbfa7e2a68f78b950b0 | head -n2
v5.4.208
v5.4.209
```
I think the fix is to return OK for 5.4.x where x >= 208.

Except... that's done via `VersionCheck` in `engine.py` which, if I'm reading it right, takes only major and minor versions, no third parameter:

```
class VersionCheck:
    def __init__(self, ver_expected):
        assert(ver_expected and isinstance(ver_expected, tuple) and len(ver_expected) == 2), \
               f'invalid version "{ver_expected}" for VersionCheck'
```
So that function would have to be made a bit more flexible.

I don't know if other `CONFIG_*` knobs disappeared / became defaults in the middle of a given major.minor kernel version, but it would not surprise me.


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-10-04 17:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/88#issuecomment-1747385253):

Hello @hlein,

Thanks for your comment!

The REFCOUNT_FULL config option was removed from the mainline in the commit [fb041bb7c0a918b95c6889fc965cdc4a75b4c0ca](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v6.6-rc4&id=fb041bb7c0a918b95c6889fc965cdc4a75b4c0ca)

This commit appeared in the mainline kernel v5.5-rc1:
```
$ cd linux/
$ git describe --match 'v*' --contains fb041bb7c0a918b95c6889fc965cdc4a75b4c0ca
v5.5-rc1~149^2~2
```

The commit [d0d583484d2ed9f5903edbbfa7e2a68f78b950b0](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-5.4.y&id=d0d583484d2ed9f5903edbbfa7e2a68f78b950b0) is the backport of the upstream commit to the stable branch:
```
$ cd linux-stable/
$ git describe --match 'v*' --contains d0d583484d2ed9f5903edbbfa7e2a68f78b950b0
v5.4.208~21
```

I didn't find backports of this commit to other stable branches.

So, technically, it's not wrong to say that REFCOUNT_FULL was removed in v5.4.208 :) 

I'll take a look at your pull request. Thanks a lot!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#87 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/87) `open`: Add a check for IA32_EMULATION
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/325724?u=4446b76c0f4ebcbecb2678759f8d13817a67f85d&v=4" width="50">[jvoisin](https://github.com/jvoisin) opened issue at [2023-09-14 12:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/87):

As [reported by phoronix](https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.7-ia32_emulation-Boot), it's now possible to disable 32b support on amd64, to reduce attack surface.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-11-22 10:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/87#issuecomment-1822468556):

Thanks @jvoisin,

This will be added in the next release of `kernel-hardening-checker`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-12-17 10:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/87#issuecomment-1859129322):

Hello @jvoisin,

The `ia32_emulation` boot param was introduced in Linux v6.7.

I'm currently preparing the `kernel-hardening-checker` release corresponding to the kernel v6.6.

So this boot option and `IA32_EMULATION_DEFAULT_DISABLED` will be added in the next release.

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#86 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86) `merged`: Add colors to output

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) opened issue at [2023-09-10 17:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86):

Shows OK in green and FAIL in red

<img width="1047" alt="image" src="https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/assets/5826484/d098d14f-2e1a-4569-af22-54ef2bc0eecb">

fixes #81

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-10 19:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86#issuecomment-1712916729):

@frakman1, thanks for the pull request!

There are some small mistakes that break the tests.

Looking forward to your fixes.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-11 18:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86#issuecomment-1714376333):

Hello @frakman1, the CI tests are broken again.

Please see, the argument of `colorize_result()` may be None in the verbose mode of the tool.
So we need to add something like that at the beginning of the function:
```
    if input is None:
        return input
```

Also please fix two pylint warnings added by this PR:

1) W0311: Bad indentation. Found 17 spaces, expected 16 (bad-indentation)

2) W0622: Redefining built-in 'input' (redefined-builtin).
To fix this, you need to rename the argument of the function.

Thanks again!
Looking forward to the fixes.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2023-09-11 23:05](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86#issuecomment-1714703072):

## [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#86](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (374aee3) into [master](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/108eb7374967b0f66e70b68cca60a0548f12844c?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (108eb73) will **decrease** coverage by `1.32%`.
> The diff coverage is `87.50%`.

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the [Codecov GitHub app](https://github.com/apps/codecov/installations/select_target) to enable full functionality.

```diff
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##            master      #86      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   98.68%   -1.32%     
===========================================
  Files            6        5       -1     
  Lines         1049      839     -210     
  Branches       184      187       +3     
===========================================
- Hits          1049      828     -221     
- Misses           0        5       +5     
- Partials         0        6       +6     
```

| [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [engine_unit-test](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | `?` | |
| [functional_test](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | `98.68% <87.50%> (-0.23%)` | :arrow_down: |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Files Changed](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/engine.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9lbmdpbmUucHk=) | `94.58% <87.50%> (-5.42%)` | :arrow_down: |

... and [1 file with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. [Learn more](https://about.codecov.io/iterative-testing/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-12 17:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86#issuecomment-1716159903):

@frakman1, thanks for the fixes!

I think we should better add colors to the `stdout_result` in the unit tests instead of filtering them out before `assertEqual()`.

That would allow to test that `colorize_result()` works as expected.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-12 22:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86#issuecomment-1716580970):

I'm sorry, this is outside the scope of my knowledge or effort. Not intersted in re-writing test cases.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-13 22:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86#issuecomment-1718385583):

Thank you!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-13 22:50](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/86#issuecomment-1718412639):

Added f8f7033.

Thanks for you contribution, @frakman1!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#85 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/85) `merged`: Rename kconfig-hardened-check into kernel-hardening-checker

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2023-09-10 12:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/85):

**kconfig-hardened-check** is a tool for checking the security hardening options of the Linux kernel.

In addition to Kconfig options, it now can check kernel cmdline arguments and sysctl parameters.

It's time to give this project a new name that describes it better: **kernel-hardening-checker**.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2023-09-10 12:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/85#issuecomment-1712799348):

## [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#85](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (032f67f) into [master](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/f8e47e12ddf6b5c7b7562af6b85b8f65481e4b07?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (f8e47e1) will **decrease** coverage by `0.04%`.
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the [Codecov GitHub app](https://github.com/apps/codecov/installations/select_target) to enable full functionality.

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #85      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.81%   99.77%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files           6        2       -4     
  Lines        1087      451     -636     
  Branches      174        0     -174     
==========================================
- Hits         1085      450     -635     
  Misses          1        1              
+ Partials        1        0       -1     
```

| [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [engine_unit-test](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | `99.77% <ø> (ø)` | |
| [functional_test](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | `?` | |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Files Changed](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kernel\_hardening\_checker/engine.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2VybmVsX2hhcmRlbmluZ19jaGVja2VyL2VuZ2luZS5weQ==) | `99.50% <ø> (ø)` | |
| [kernel\_hardening\_checker/test\_engine.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2VybmVsX2hhcmRlbmluZ19jaGVja2VyL3Rlc3RfZW5naW5lLnB5) | `100.00% <ø> (ø)` | |

... and [4 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/85/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. [Learn more](https://about.codecov.io/iterative-testing/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#84 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/84) `open`: Add RDK Linux Hardening specification flags
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) opened issue at [2023-09-01 12:48](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/84):

The [RDK Linux Hardening specification](https://developer.rdkcentral.com/documentation/documentation/licensee_specific_subsystems/rdk_security_concepts/rdk_software_security_specifications/rdk_linux_hardening_specification/) lists many flags that are not checked in this tool. The first five I looked for were not there: `CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL` `CONFIG_MARKERS` `CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMLEAK` and `CONFIG_ELF_CORE`

Perhaps these can be added as part of a new 'RDK security policy' check for the 'decision' column

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-05 14:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/84#issuecomment-1706723756):

Link no longer appears to be up. I saved a cache for reference:

----

RDK Linux Hardening specification 
Created on June 21, 2022 
1.	Ensure no hard-coded credentials are present in the clear
2.	Ensure compliance with Comcast specifications for crypto and TLS 
o	All STB connections to servers must be secured using TLS 1.2 or above, and verified to be correctly performing server certificate chain validation
3.	Build with stack-smashing (at least for modules implementing security) 
o	Enable CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, -fstack-protector-all, -Wstack-protector
o	Libc function buffer overrun checks: _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
o	Initial requirement would be to enable this for all security sensitive modules with follow up to enable for the entire build.
4.	Scan all non-OSS sources with static analyzer
5.	Network port blocking 
o	All ports not specifically used must be blocked by ipTables rules 
6.	Disable all unused devices (USB, Bluetooth, etc)
7.	Implement multiuser/sandbox strategy (Restrict Linux process privileges) 
o	No applications/utilities within a sandbox should run as root or have any means to achieve root privileges.  Sandbox shall not contains hard links to outside files.  Every sandbox connected to external network shall contain its own firewall and shall be configured using a whitelist.
o	Configure processes to the minimum capabilities and resources required for their operation.  Have unique user and group own service components/applications that need to be isolated.  Users have permissions to access the required device files only.  Shared files are access controlled using group permissions. Default permissions for newly created files include read/write/exec permissions for the owner only.  Always use setresuid() and setresgid() functions to change the current user and group. Always confirm the change with getresuid() and getresgid() function.  Users and groups must have unique ID’s
o	In progress, containerization via LXC is being implemented for subset of RDK processes.  OEM may choose to use a technology other than LXC to sandbox their processes.
8.	Vet all open source 
o	Currently being done using Whitesource tool
9.	Disable kernel module load 
o	Making modules statically linked to the kernel would be a significant effort.
o	Disable module load after boot using /proc/sys/kernel/module_disabled 
10.	Disable kernel module unload 
o	Set CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD
11.	Kernel module parameters must be R/O or trusted 
o	Audit boot scripts to ensure loadable kernel module parameters are hard coded and don’t rely on data from persistent storage or other writable source
12.	Remove kernel debugging and profiling options 
o	CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL CONFIG_MARKERS CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMLEAK CONFIG_KPROBES
o	CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG CONFIG_PROFILING CONFIG_DEBUG_FS CONFIG_KPTRACE
o	CONFIG_KALLSYMS CONFIG_LTT CONFIG_UNUSED_SYMBOLS CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT
o	CONFIG_RELAY CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ CONFIG_VM_EVENT_COUNTERS CONFIGU_UNWIND_INFO
o	CONFIG_BPA2_ALLOC_TRACE CONFIG_PRINTK
o	CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP CONFIG_BUG CONFIG_SCSI_LOGGING CONFIG_ELF_CORE CONFIG_FULL_PANIC
o	CONFIG_TASKSTATUS CONFIG_AUDIT CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT CONFIG_KEXEC
o	CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK CONFIG_IKCONFIG CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG
o	CONFIG_MTD_UBI_DEBUG CONFIG_B43_DEBUG CONFIG_SSB_DEBUG CONFIG_FB_INTEL_DEBUG
o	CONFIG_TRACING CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS 
13.	Disable unused file system and block device support
14.	Enable heap protection and pointer obfuscation features. 
o	Enabled by default in glibc.  Protects heap from buffer overflows.  Available in glibc 2.3.4 or above, Enabled using environment variable malloc_check_
15.	Restrict /dev/mem to minimal regions of memory required
16.	Remove support for /dev/kmem
17.	Remove support for /dev/kcore 
o	Kernel core dumping should be disabled in production
18.	Enable format, buffer, and object size checks
19.	Restrict /proc to process owners (except for IDS)
20.	Disable kernel configfs 
o	Allows modification of kernel objects
21.	Remove ldconfig from target filesystem and [ld.so](http://ld.so/).conf and [ld.so](http://ld.so/).cache should be empty 
o	Removes caching of symbolic links.  Will cause a performance hit.
o	Impact: glibc changes. Would allow loading libraries from a non-standard library path even if we don’t use LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
22.	Security critical software are compiled as PIE (Position Independent Executable), if supported
23.	Kernel boots with “ro” in command line  
o	Mount filesystem as readonly. 
24.	Mount filesystems with minimal privileges. For example, filesystem containing no executable code shall have “noexec” option specified. 
25.	Mount temporary storage (/tmp) shall in dedicated filesystem (eg. tmpfs) and its contents does not survive reboots
26.	Flush cache after accessing sensitive data
27.	No overlay of writable mounts on read-only data 
28.	system directories such as /proc or /dev shall not be writable within a sandbox
29.	Applications and utilities shall not have the setgid or setuid bit set
30.	Configure default shell to /dev/null
31.	Remove all unused executables and libraries
32.	Disable PTRACE, General restriction on PTRACE should be applied at kernel level with Yama LSM  
o	http://linux-audit.com/protect-ptrace-processes-kernel-yama-ptrace_scope/ 
o	PTRACE is used by GDB.  Disable only for production builds.  Both compile time and runtime changes required (can restrict PTRACE to root if required)
33.	Don’t use LD_LIBRARY_PATH (loads libraries from default locations only)
34.	Full runtime path for non-standard libraries included in code image 
o	Use -rpath and -rpath-link
35.	Mount filesystems with ro option and change permission temporarily when needed
36.	Kernel init parameters / command line must be R/O and trusted
37.	Restrict kernel syslog (dmesg) to root user only
38.	Disable kernel debugfs 
o	Part of sysfs used to enable kernel debug messaging.  If printk is disabled this becomes irrelevant
39.	Use ELF format only 
o	May break scripts like Python
40.	Dynamic linker configuration changes 
o	Remove LD_DEBUG support from dynamic linker 
o	Remove LD_PRELOAD support from dynamic linker 
o	Remove LD_PROFILE support from the dynamic linker 
o	Remove LD_AUDIT support from the dynamic linker 
o	Remove LD_SHOW_AUXV support from the dynamic linker
o	Remove LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS support from the dynamic linker 
o	Link dynamic programs with -z now and -z relro options 
41.	Hide restricted kernel pointers 
o	Restricted pointers replaced with 0’s.
o	Relates to printk handling of printing pointer values.  This is a runtime setting, enable/disable via /proc/sys/kernel/kptr_restrict
42.	Review use of SYSFS, disable it if possible
43.	Mark unchanging files in writable partition with “immutable”
44.	Use all compiler security features 
o	Compile -wall, -Werror and fail on warnings (and possibly -Wextra)
45.	Replace strcpy with strncpy 
o	All code should use safer, bounds checking versions of string library functions (such as strncpy instead of strcpy) to avoid potential buffer overruns.
46.	Prevent file races, open temp files with O_CREAT | O_EXCL 
o	Makes check for file existence and creation atomic.  Prevents multiple threads creating same file. 
47.	Set sticky bit for temporary directories to prevent acc
idental deletion
o	Only owner and root can delete directory
48.	Restrict kernel network settings to be the most restrictive possible
49.	Limit temporary storage (tmpfs) memory size 
50.	Enable kernel ABI Version Check
51.	Disable kernel symbol resolution 
o	Disable CONFIG_KALLSYMS
o	Limits our ability to debug kernel crash dumps
52.	Disable kernel crashdump 
o	Disable CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP 
53.	Minimum MMAPable address set to 4K min. 
o	This prevents mapping NULL address

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-11-22 10:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/84#issuecomment-1822479661):

Need to compare these recommendations with the current `kernel-hardening-checker` rules.

Gonna do that after preparing the next release of the tool.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#83 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/83) `closed`: Enhancement add kmalloc hardening
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/77795961?v=4" width="50">[osevan](https://github.com/osevan) opened issue at [2023-08-29 23:53](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/83):

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Randomize-Kmalloc-Cache

Thanks and
Best regards

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-03 15:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/83#issuecomment-1704338755):

@osevan, thanks!
I'll consider it during preparing the next release of the tool.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-12-16 23:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/83#issuecomment-1858987573):

Done! Thanks @osevan.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#82 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/82) `closed`: Consider removing/not recommending CONFIG_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/325724?u=4446b76c0f4ebcbecb2678759f8d13817a67f85d&v=4" width="50">[jvoisin](https://github.com/jvoisin) opened issue at [2023-05-08 12:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/82):

CONFIG_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS is [useless at best](https://dustri.org/b/paper-notes-clean-the-scratch-registers-a-way-to-mitigate-return-oriented-programming-attacks.html), with a **significant** performance impact.

This is a security theatre knob, and the performance budget would be better spent elsewhere.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-03 15:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/82#issuecomment-1704340181):

@jvoisin, thanks for the article!
It looks reasonable, we'll discuss it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#81 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81) `closed`: Color indicators for "check result" column
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4941656?v=4" width="50">[harisphnx](https://github.com/harisphnx) opened issue at [2023-04-27 13:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81):

Would the maintainers be open to adding colors to the output of the "check result" column? For example, the output would be red for FAIL, and green for OK?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4941656?v=4" width="50">[harisphnx](https://github.com/harisphnx) commented at [2023-04-27 13:17](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1525681451):

If so, I can make the change and create a PR

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-05-07 16:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1537488610):

Yes, it would be nice.
Looking forward to your PR.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-01 17:04](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1703069739):

Has anyone done this yet?
I made a hacky attempt of this last year before the `sysctl` support was added. I added different colors for the two sections too:

<img width="1282" alt="image" src="https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/assets/5826484/e880006a-5f1d-4580-b3e2-dcc0b104b089">

I just tried to overlay it onto the latest code but it's too different now. My changes were in `kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py` but everything has moved since then. Unfortunately, not an easy merge.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-03 15:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1704337689):

@frakman1 thanks, it looks nice.
Could you give a link to your commit? I'll help to rebase it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-03 16:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1704345063):

Thank you @a13xp0p0v. 
I just checked and my changes were based on [this](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/899752c13f4d1260d1a33985672b72b3a9cb60ec/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py) commit:
```
* 899752c - (Sun Oct 2 21:45:13 2022 +0300) Also check 'nospectre_v2' with 'spectre_v2' - <Alexander Popov> (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
```
Unfortunately, I never commited it and just stashed it before doing a `git pull`

Original File (rename to .py):
[__init__.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/12506520/__init__.txt)


Colored File (rename to .py):
[__init__.color.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/12506521/__init__.color.txt)

I created a patch file using:
```
git diff --no-index --patch --output=color.diff __init__.py __init__.color.py
```

patch file (optionally rename to .diff):
[color.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/12506530/color.txt)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-03 19:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1704387355):

Thanks, I see the approach.

Let's print OK results in green and FAIL results in red.

We need to modify the `table_print()` method of classes in [engine.py](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kconfig_hardened_check/engine.py).

I would recommend something like that:

1) defining ANSI escape sequences at the beginning of the file:
```
GREEN_COLOR = '\x1b[32m'
RED_COLOR = '\x1b[31m'
COLOR_END = '\x1b[0m'
```

2) modify printing methods this way:
```
if with_results:
    if self.result.startswith('OK'):
        color = GREEN_COLOR
    elif self.result.startswith('FAIL:'):
        color = RED_COLOR
    else:
        assert(False), f'unexpected result "{self.result}"'
    colored_result = f'{color}{self.result}{COLOR_END}'
    print(f'| {colored_result}', end='')
```

What do you think?
Would you like to prepare a pull request?

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/141440559?u=a2256f43745996b332a33cc986eb796c084caed2&v=4" width="50">[trclst](https://github.com/trclst) commented at [2023-09-03 23:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1704435599):

I would only going to color `OK `and `FAIL` not full line.
Besides, I don't know if there aren't more important things a `| grep FAIL` can do.
Maybe it is better to keep the code small, the information is still there whether in color or not.
Anyway hope it looks fancy.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-04 05:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1704624719):

If you only want to see the failures, you can use the `-m show_fail` option

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-04 18:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1705607069):

> What do you think? Would you like to prepare a pull request?

I like it. Thank you for the guidance. I just attempted it and it seems I have to repeat that logic in three places before I could get all the prints.

sample output:

<img width="1047" alt="image" src="https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/assets/5826484/d098d14f-2e1a-4569-af22-54ef2bc0eecb">

Diffs located in my fork ~~[here](https://github.com/frakman1/kconfig-hardened-check/compare/108eb7374967b0f66e70b68cca60a0548f12844c...71c8e35842b805e8e6b819bf599b07fdd0d48479)~~

@a13xp0p0v Let me know if that looks good. If so, I will issue a pull request.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-09 16:56](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1712554168):

Thanks @frakman1 !

I would propose creating a function `colorize_result()` and call several times to avoid copying the code.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-09 18:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1712570988):

I've updated the code with your recommendations. See changes [here](https://github.com/frakman1/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/fb9aeb5392762c6ea3aa67096a18e163e63ec6ea)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-09 19:17](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1712582213):

I've left some comments. The main point: it's better to leave printing inside of the `table_print()` method. The `colorize_result()` function should only return the colored string.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-09 21:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1712623127):

Changes applied [here](https://github.com/frakman1/kconfig-hardened-check/compare/108eb7374967b0f66e70b68cca60a0548f12844c..b317b9f)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-09-10 11:04](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1712783879):

Good!

Please remove the unneeded whitespaces and send the pull request.

Looking forward to it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5826484?u=2cc3ddef5824379423495733759ef362d0600078&v=4" width="50">[frakman1](https://github.com/frakman1) commented at [2023-09-10 17:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/81#issuecomment-1712896232):

Done.
https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/86


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#80 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/80) `merged`: Added support for gzipped config (eg. /proc/config.gz)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3389586?u=71aa9a963297407bb515b073245e398e8049d582&v=4" width="50">[nE0sIghT](https://github.com/nE0sIghT) opened issue at [2023-03-25 09:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/80):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2023-03-26 15:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/80#issuecomment-1484123415):

## [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/80?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#80](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/80?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (8def541) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/b65af76d6e84b4cd80f4fb4c72799bdd49237024?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (b65af76) will **decrease** coverage by `0.24%`.
> The diff coverage is `80.00%`.

:mega: This organization is not using Codecov’s [GitHub App Integration](https://github.com/apps/codecov). We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. [Learn more](https://about.codecov.io/blog/codecov-is-updating-its-github-integration/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #80      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.39%   98.16%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files           6        6              
  Lines         812      818       +6     
  Branches      160      161       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits          799      803       +4     
- Misses          7        8       +1     
- Partials        6        7       +1     
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| engine_unit-test | `76.80% <ø> (ø)` | |
| functional_test | `97.97% <80.00%> (-0.26%)` | :arrow_down: |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/80?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/80?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `99.10% <80.00%> (-0.90%)` | :arrow_down: |

:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. [Learn more](https://about.codecov.io/iterative-testing/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-03-26 16:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/80#issuecomment-1484141857):

Hello @nE0sIghT,

I've merged your pull request and added:
 - informing about supporting *.gz kconfig files,
 - functional testing of this feature.

Thanks!
Alexander


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#79 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/79) `closed`: Create unit-tests for the engine checking the correctness
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2023-03-06 08:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/79):

That would prevent the bug in cb779a71bf57d95b. See the fix d006bfa48e87.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-04-02 12:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/79#issuecomment-1493323795):

Good. This task is completed.

Unit-tests for the `kconfig-hardened-check` engine are created:
[kconfig_hardened_check/test_engine.py](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kconfig_hardened_check/test_engine.py)

CI performs unit-testing on each repository push:
https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/actions/workflows/engine_unit-test.yml

These unit-tests check the correctness of the engine results and cover 100% of the engine code.

Reverting the aforementioned fix https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/d006bfa48e87600e70aae1a696ede3182f6c1cbd is detected by these unit-tests:
```
======================================================================
FAIL: test_simple_kconfig (kconfig_hardened_check.test_engine.TestEngine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/a13x/land/Develop/Linux_Kernel/kconfig-hardened-check/kconfig_hardened_check/test_engine.py", line 130, in test_simple_kconfig
    self.assertEqual(
AssertionError: Lists differ: [['CO[701 chars]8', 'OK: is not off, "off"'], ['CONFIG_NAME_9'[169 chars]nd']] != [['CO[701 chars]8', 'FAIL: is off'], ['CONFIG_NAME_9', 'kconfi[160 chars]nd']]

First differing element 7:
['CON[25 chars]is not off', 'decision_8', 'reason_8', 'OK: is not off, "off"']
['CON[25 chars]is not off', 'decision_8', 'reason_8', 'FAIL: is off']
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#78 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/78) `closed`: Fix nixos integration

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) opened issue at [2022-12-29 10:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/78):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2022-12-29 10:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/78#issuecomment-1367203889):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/78?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#78](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/78?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (6fde9d6) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/6211b6852b6b35f6f5d18ec2f0e713d2afea5a87?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (6211b68) will **increase** coverage by `0.40%`.
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #78      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.79%   93.20%   +0.40%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         736      736              
  Branches      171      171              
==========================================
+ Hits          683      686       +3     
+ Misses         26       24       -2     
+ Partials       27       26       -1     
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `93.20% <ø> (+0.40%)` | :arrow_up: |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/78?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/78/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `93.25% <0.00%> (+0.41%)` | :arrow_up: |

:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. [Learn more](https://about.codecov.io/iterative-testing/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-01-19 19:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/78#issuecomment-1397525515):

Hello @Mic92,

Closing, this issue has been fixed in https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/77.

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#77 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/77) `merged`: add get-nixos-kconfig nix script

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/106462796?v=4" width="50">[o8opi](https://github.com/o8opi) opened issue at [2022-12-29 09:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/77):

Hello,

This nix script, when run with `nix-build get-nixos-kconfig.nix` will output 3 kernel configuration files (linux_latest, linux_hardened, and the linux_lts)  for NixOS

Has been tested on Ubuntu 20.04

#63  relevant

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2023-01-19 15:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/77#issuecomment-1397110519):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/77?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#77](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/77?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (6149a3e) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/6211b6852b6b35f6f5d18ec2f0e713d2afea5a87?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (6211b68) will **not change** coverage.
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

```diff
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #77   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.79%   92.79%           
=======================================
  Files           3        3           
  Lines         736      736           
  Branches      171      171           
=======================================
  Hits          683      683           
  Misses         26       26           
  Partials       27       27           
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `92.79% <ø> (ø)` | |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.


:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. [Learn more](https://about.codecov.io/iterative-testing/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-01-19 16:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/77#issuecomment-1397219216):

Thanks a lot, @o8opi!

It's merged.

I also generated the NixOS kernel configs using `nix-build get-nixos-kconfig.nix`: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/0267c39d10364e2afb0779f2ce271539eff6f4e1


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#76 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/76) `closed`: iommu=force

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/74207682?u=fc82f6c725c4a6a1e0e8786b3ecee80b18118c92&v=4" width="50">[d4rklynk](https://github.com/d4rklynk) opened issue at [2022-12-13 17:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/76):

It seems it helps indirectly from DMA attacks (from what I understand). It is recommended by ANSSI.

From this [PDF](https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2019/02/fr_np_linux_configuration-v2.0.pdf) (in french) at the chapter "**5.2.1 Configuration de la mémoire**"

Or from this [older version](https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2019/03/linux_configuration-en-v1.2.pdf) of the same PDF but in english : chapter "**4.3 IOMMU Service (input/output virtualization)**"

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-01-21 22:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/76#issuecomment-1399341218):

Added this check in https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/4e0065c8baf8d40c733f7f4c5c920c07b93c55b6

Thanks, @d4rklynk!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#75 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/75) `closed`: Integrity Measurement Architecture 
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/97197406?u=3fc2e7c1b9d9f1b9b1c8e7268aaa11204944694e&v=4" width="50">[JohnVengert](https://github.com/JohnVengert) opened issue at [2022-11-14 04:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/75):

The Integrity Measurement Architecture is a subsystem that is responsible
 for calculating file hashes. this allows greater security . This option would be ideal
 to be integrated, 

Kernel Config -

```
CONFIG_IMA=y
CONFIG_IMA_MEASURE_PCR_IDX=10
CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES=y
CONFIG_IMA_NG_TEMPLATE=y
# CONFIG_IMA_SIG_TEMPLATE is not set
CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_TEMPLATE="ima-ng"
# CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH_SHA1 is not set
# CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH_SHA256 is not set
CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH_SHA512=y
CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH="sha512"
CONFIG_IMA_WRITE_POLICY=y
CONFIG_IMA_READ_POLICY=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE=y
CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BUILD_POLICY=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_REQUIRE_FIRMWARE_SIGS=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_REQUIRE_KEXEC_SIGS=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_REQUIRE_MODULE_SIGS=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_REQUIRE_POLICY_SIGS=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=y
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG=y
CONFIG_IMA_TRUSTED_KEYRING=y
CONFIG_IMA_KEYRINGS_PERMIT_SIGNED_BY_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY=y
CONFIG_IMA_BLACKLIST_KEYRING=y
CONFIG_IMA_LOAD_X509=y
CONFIG_IMA_X509_PATH="/etc/keys/x509_ima.der"
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_SIGNED_INIT is not set (This option breaks memory, do not select)
CONFIG_IMA_MEASURE_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS=y
CONFIG_IMA_QUEUE_EARLY_BOOT_KEYS=y
CONFIG_IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT=y
CONFIG_IMA_DISABLE_HTABLE=y
CONFIG_EVM=y
CONFIG_EVM_ATTR_FSUUID=y
CONFIG_EVM_EXTRA_SMACK_XATTRS=y
CONFIG_EVM_ADD_XATTRS=y
CONFIG_EVM_LOAD_X509=y
CONFIG_EVM_X509_PATH="/etc/keys/x509_evm.der"

```
My system integrates this security 
https://sourceforge.net/projects/anti-ransomware/

Thank you very much



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-12-08 13:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/75#issuecomment-1342739444):

Hello @JohnVengert,

1. As I understand, IMA doesn't have direct influence on Linux **kernel** security.
It's important for the userspace security, isn't it?

2. Does this functionality require any userspace support or actions to work?

3. You've provided a large list of options. Could you create a shortlist with the most important of them?

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#74 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/74) `closed`: Add disabling compatibility mode.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7232674?u=dba600128b18073a4e3c33b76f5c601591d8f613&v=4" width="50">[Manouchehri](https://github.com/Manouchehri) opened issue at [2022-10-20 22:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/74):

I'm not a kernel maintainer, so I added myself a new category. I don't think I'm wrong about this one though, here's a few public examples I found within a minute of searching:

https://google.github.io/security-research/pocs/linux/cve-2021-22555/writeup.html
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1574
https://outflux.net/blog/archives/2010/10/19/cve-2010-2963-v4l-compat-exploit/
http://inertiawar.com/compat1/
http://inertiawar.com/compat2/

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-10-22 18:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/74#issuecomment-1287883856):

Hello @Manouchehri,

Thanks for your pull request and the idea.

I looked up. That's how `CONFIG_COMPAT` is currently implemented:
```
config COMPAT
	def_bool y
	depends on IA32_EMULATION || X86_X32_ABI
```
So we can't enable/disable it in the menuconfig directly.

The KSPP project already recommends disabling `IA32_EMULATION` and `X86_X32`:
```
CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION    |kconfig| is not set |   kspp   |cut_attack_surface
CONFIG_X86_X32           |kconfig| is not set |   kspp   |cut_attack_surface
```

So maybe adding a separate check for `COMPAT` is not needed.

But wait, `COMPAT` depends on `X86_X32_ABI` and not `X86_X32`.

There is a Linux kernel commit `83a44a4f47ad20997aebb311fc678a13cde391d7` (Mar 14 2022)
that renamed this config option. I will ask to update it at the KSPP wiki.
Then I will add a new check for `X86_X32_ABI`.

Thank you very much!

This case shows that from time to time we need to look up all config options that should be disabled.
Maybe some of them have been renamed in the Linux kernel.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7232674?u=dba600128b18073a4e3c33b76f5c601591d8f613&v=4" width="50">[Manouchehri](https://github.com/Manouchehri) commented at [2022-10-22 19:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/74#issuecomment-1287884800):

CONFIG_COMPAT depends on the arch too. For example, neither `X86_X32_ABI` or `X86_X32` will cover arm64 systems.

```
menuconfig COMPAT
	bool "Kernel support for 32-bit EL0"
	depends on ARM64_4K_PAGES || EXPERT
```

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm64/Kconfig#L1526-L1542

I don't see the harm in a separate check for `COMPAT`. That flag has been around for years and not changed across architectures IIRC.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-10-22 19:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/74#issuecomment-1287885578):

That's a good point!
I'll return with the results.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-01-14 18:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/74#issuecomment-1382873066):

Hello @Manouchehri,

I contacted KSPP. Now their recommendations [contain](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kernel_Self_Protection_Project%2FRecommended_Settings&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=4064&oldid=4060) disabling `CONFIG_COMPAT` and `CONFIG_X86_X32_ABI`.

Please see the commit https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/f3ba594b3acbc154eeade43d87a76b90352ab1d1, where I added these KSPP recommendations.

Thank you for the idea!
Closing the PR.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#73 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/73) `closed`: ERORR?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/77776927?v=4" width="50">[alpahca](https://github.com/alpahca) opened issue at [2022-09-24 15:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/73):

i was try to some book(Billimoria, Kaiwan N. Linux Kernel Debugging: Leverage proven tools and advanced techniques to effectively debug Linux kernels and kernel modules (p. 61). Packt Publishing. Kindle Edition. ).

but.

$ bin/kconfig-hardened-check -p X86_64 -c ~/lkd_kernels/kconfig.prod01/.config
[!] ERROR: --config and --print can't be used together

what should i do?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-09-24 21:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/73#issuecomment-1257066908):

Hi @alpahca,

Quoting `kconfig-hardened-check --help`:
```
  -p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}, --print {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}
                        print security hardening preferences for the selected architecture
  -c CONFIG, --config CONFIG
                        check the kernel kconfig file against these preferences
```

So for checking your kernel config simply do this:
```
$ bin/kconfig-hardened-check -c ~/lkd_kernels/kconfig.prod01/.config
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/77776927?v=4" width="50">[alpahca](https://github.com/alpahca) commented at [2022-10-11 07:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/73#issuecomment-1274233073):

Oh thx.
But... 
VirtualBox:~/lkd_kernels/kconfig_prod01$ '/home/ked/kconfig-hardened-check/bin/kconfig-hardened-check' -c '/home/ked/lkd_kernels/kconfig_prod01'
[+] Kconfig file to check: /home/ked/lkd_kernels/kconfig_prod01
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/ked/kconfig-hardened-check/bin/kconfig-hardened-check", line 16, in
kconfig_hardened_check.main()
File "/home/ked/kconfig-hardened-check/kconfig_hardened_check/init.py", line 976, in main
arch, msg = detect_arch(args.config, supported_archs)
File "/home/ked/kconfig-hardened-check/kconfig_hardened_check/init.py", line 275, in detect_arch
with open(fname, 'r') as f:
IsADirectoryError: [Errno 21] Is a directory: '/home/ked/lkd_kernels/kconfig_prod01'
​
Uhm... that should be my problem?
​
-----Original Message-----
From: "Alexander ***@***.***>
To: ***@***.***>;
Cc: ***@***.***>; ***@***.***>;
Sent: 2022-09-25 (일) 06:18:44 (GMT+09:00)
Subject: Re: [a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check] ERORR? (Issue #73)

Hi @alpahca,
Quoting kconfig-hardened-check --help:
-p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}, --print {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM} print security hardening preferences for the selected architecture -c CONFIG, --config CONFIG check the kernel kconfig file against these preferences
So for checking your kernel config simply do this:
$ bin/kconfig-hardened-check -c ~/lkd_kernels/kconfig.prod01/.config
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
​

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-10-22 19:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/73#issuecomment-1287890539):

Hi @alpahca,

Please try to use `-c` with the path to the kconfig file, not a directory.

Best regards,
Alexander


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#71 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/71) `closed`: Config change in 5.19.X

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11868071?u=d7a5841263276e1f323827fc21b04345df594a60&v=4" width="50">[Churam](https://github.com/Churam) opened issue at [2022-08-31 08:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/71):

Hello,

The X86_SMAP option is no longer present in 5.19.X kernels. It is now enforced.
( [commit](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=v5.19.5&id=c5a3d3c01e90e74166f95eec9db6fcc3ba72a9d6) )

Since it has been removed, the script mark the entry as failed.
```
[+] Special report mode: show_fail
[+] Kconfig file to check: /opt/KERNEL/linux-5.19.5/.config
[+] Detected architecture: X86_64
[+] Detected kernel version: 5.19
=========================================================================================================================
              option name               | type  |desired val | decision |      reason      | check result
=========================================================================================================================
CONFIG_X86_SMAP                         |kconfig|     y      |defconfig | self_protection  | FAIL: not found
```



The GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT and GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE have changed now that CLANG has the feature. ( [commit](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-5.19.y&id=595b893e2087de306d0781795fb8ec47873596a6) ). They are now nammed RANDSTRUCT_FULL and RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE respectively. 

At the moment they don't fail but the new entries should be added in the script I think. 
```
 grep RANDSTRUCT ./.config
# CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_NONE is not set
CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_FULL=y
# CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE is not set
CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT=y
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT=y
```



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-09-02 11:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/71#issuecomment-1235396338):

Hi @Churam,

Thanks for your report!

I've improved the checks, please have a look.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2022-09-06 19:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/71#issuecomment-1238566204):

maybe it would make sense to tag a new release after :cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-09-09 08:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/71#issuecomment-1241663085):

Hi @anthraxx,

I have a complex and time-consuming procedure for preparing the kconfig-hardened-check releases.

I’m planning to do this work for the next Linux kernel release.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#70 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70) `closed`: COPR repo with built kernel with suggested recommendations

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/75043245?u=6d29ec5975073ebb1af663a8bf866715b525d50e&v=4" width="50">[krishjainx](https://github.com/krishjainx) opened issue at [2022-07-21 15:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70):

Hi. This repository has been incredibly useful to me as of late. I’m trying to do the following: create a COPR repository for example such that it takes the kernel configuration from Fedora’s latest kernel build for say 36 and then applies the recommended options here, handles setting everything on/off etc for everything that depends on that option and everything setting that option depends on while blacklisting certain recommendations such that it doesn’t break certain apps etc. Post doing this it would grab the source code for that kernel versions and build it with those configs and then one would just install the kernel normally.

How would one go about implementing this? Thank you!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-07-21 19:48](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70#issuecomment-1191870587):

Hi Krish,

This approach can be called "creating a kernel flavour". Some distros do that.

For example, see:
 - Ubuntu kernel flavours: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/Flavours
 - Suse kernel flavours: https://www.suse.com/support/kb/doc/?id=000017133
 - The discussion about NixOS hardened kernel: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/76850

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/75043245?u=6d29ec5975073ebb1af663a8bf866715b525d50e&v=4" width="50">[krishjainx](https://github.com/krishjainx) commented at [2022-07-21 22:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70#issuecomment-1191988714):

Yes, thank you I understand that but how would I have your script/tool change the .config to be more hardened and then have that grab new kernel sources and automatically build like if I was to hold a COPR?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-07-22 21:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70#issuecomment-1192931275):

Thanks Krish, now I see what you mean.

There is an enhancement #67. Maybe it would help to solve your task.
```
Create a tool that changes kconfig options according the recommendations
```
It should use the JSON output of `kconfig-hardened-check` and work with kconfig with [kconfiglib](https://pypi.org/project/kconfiglib/).

What do you think?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/75043245?u=6d29ec5975073ebb1af663a8bf866715b525d50e&v=4" width="50">[krishjainx](https://github.com/krishjainx) commented at [2022-07-23 03:10](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70#issuecomment-1193047106):

For sure, this project is perhaps one of the best and most usable for kernel hardening and I would definitely be able to help if you can get started or others with implementing this. Thank you!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/75043245?u=6d29ec5975073ebb1af663a8bf866715b525d50e&v=4" width="50">[krishjainx](https://github.com/krishjainx) commented at [2022-07-23 03:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70#issuecomment-1193047378):

It would be incredibly useful to instead of being developing sideways independent projects like linux-hardened or grsecurity to be working more close with upstream like you are - getting all the performance improvements, bug fixes and applying all available "vanilla" security fixes and pushing this to distributions using that tool. Then people can work off it. Even if it's not "revolutionary" I definitely believe in the long term it would help make Linux even better!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-07-24 15:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/70#issuecomment-1193343924):

I can't comment about `grsecurity`. This topic is complex... Anyway, they are pioneers in kernel security hardening.

The goal of `KSPP` is to develop kernel self-protection features for the mainline kernel. I hope my `kconfig-hardened-check` project also promotes these security features among Linux distros.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#69 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/69) `open`: Create documentation describing Linux kernel security options
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2022-07-04 10:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/69):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/106462796?v=4" width="50">[o8opi](https://github.com/o8opi) commented at [2023-04-09 20:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/69#issuecomment-1501206810):

Would love to see this, even if it's just a list of links and pointers to other resources :)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#68 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/68) `closed`: Create a tool reporting mainline kernel versions that support a recommended option
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2022-07-04 00:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/68):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-07-17 15:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/68#issuecomment-1186547339):

The LKDDb project solves this task. Added info to the README.

Good. Closing the issue.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#67 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/67) `closed`: Create a tool that changes kconfig options according to the recommendations
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2022-07-04 00:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/67):

It should use the JSON output of kconfig-hardened-check.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-07-17 13:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/67#issuecomment-1186522515):

See https://pypi.org/project/kconfiglib/

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-02-17 16:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/67#issuecomment-1434854140):

That tool would also help to filter out the kconfig options that can't be enabled for the given kernel version.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-06-12 15:32](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/67#issuecomment-1587577476):

This feature is implemented as a part of the `kconfig-hardened-check` tool.

With the `-g` argument, the tool generates a Kconfig fragment with the security hardening options for the selected microarchitecture.

This Kconfig fragment can be merged with the existing Linux kernel config:

```
$ ./bin/kconfig-hardened-check -g X86_64 > /tmp/fragment
$ cd ~/linux-src/
$ ./scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh .config /tmp/fragment
Using .config as base
Merging /tmp/fragment
Value of CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION is redefined by fragment /tmp/fragment:
Previous value: # CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION is not set
New value: CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION=y
 ...
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#66 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/66) `open`: Evaluate performance penalty of the recommended kernel options
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2022-07-03 09:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/66):

As the first step, @BlackIkeEagle made some performance tests and described the results in [this article](https://blog.herecura.eu/blog/2020-05-30-kconfig-hardening-tests/).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-12-08 14:46](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/66#issuecomment-1342846087):

Create a solution for automating this process:
 1. Take defconfig as a basic kernel configuration.
 2. Build the Linux kernel.
 3. Start test system with this kernel (a hardware machine may give more consistent results than a virtual machine). If the system doesn't boot, go to step 6.
 4. Run the chosen performance tests (hackbench, kernel compilation, network throughput evaluation, etc).
 5. Save the test results.
 6. Set another kernel option from the kconfig-hardened-check json output and go to step 2 (see #67). If all recommendations are already tested, then proceed to step 7.
 7. Analyze the results of the performance testing.

That approach would save us from plenty of boring manual routine.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-12-08 18:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/66#issuecomment-1343190811):

Similar performance testing of a group of  security hardening options may give interesting results as well.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#65 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/65) `closed`: Support checking sysctl security options
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2022-07-03 09:50](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/65):

The `OptCheck` class inheritance now allows to implement this feature.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-08-14 12:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/65#issuecomment-1677237521):

Checking sysctl parameters is supported now:
```
$ ./bin/kconfig-hardened-check 
usage: kconfig-hardened-check [-h] [--version] [-m {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}]
                              [-c CONFIG] [-l CMDLINE] [-s SYSCTL]
                              [-p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}]
                              [-g {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}]

A tool for checking the security hardening options of the Linux kernel

options:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --version             show program's version number and exit
  -m {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}, --mode {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}
                        choose the report mode
  -c CONFIG, --config CONFIG
                        check the security hardening options in the kernel Kconfig file
                        (also supports *.gz files)
  -l CMDLINE, --cmdline CMDLINE
                        check the security hardening options in the kernel cmdline file
                        (contents of /proc/cmdline)
  -s SYSCTL, --sysctl SYSCTL
                        check the security hardening options in the sysctl output file
                        (`sudo sysctl -a > file`)
  -p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}, --print {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}
                        print the security hardening recommendations for the selected
                        microarchitecture
  -g {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}, --generate {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}
                        generate a Kconfig fragment with the security hardening options
                        for the selected microarchitecture
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#64 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64) `closed`: script fetch configs from different kernel images for current architecture

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/106462796?v=4" width="50">[o8opi](https://github.com/o8opi) opened issue at [2022-06-01 06:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64):

This script now tries to fetch and/or build the different kernel images for current architecture and derive the kernel configs from them

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/106462796?v=4" width="50">[o8opi](https://github.com/o8opi) commented at [2022-06-01 06:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64#issuecomment-1143174866):

This might resolve #63

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2022-06-08 15:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64#issuecomment-1150072367):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/64?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#64](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/64?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (86b6b08) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/0d5c56f297fca50a48dfc602a5b4118b8ebdbceb?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (0d5c56f) will **not change** coverage.
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

```diff
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #64   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.08%   98.08%           
=======================================
  Files           3        3           
  Lines         625      625           
  Branches      139      139           
=======================================
  Hits          613      613           
  Misses          5        5           
  Partials        7        7           
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `98.08% <ø> (ø)` | |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-06-10 16:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64#issuecomment-1152552051):

Hello @o8opi,

I tried your version of this script in a Docker container with Ubuntu 20.04.2.

It failed with the error:
```
...
copying path '/nix/store/l920bx9bw37jd681pk98dfra0j3lanva-libarchive-3.6.1-lib' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/km0c80plib16fp76prmhcdwbag9iqnvf-nix-2.9.1' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/0szyscpg632p7vlj9if5gadwlvwcb91d-nix-2.9.1-dev' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
building '/nix/store/yz1y19d71lp53jymd51h4qw9c2663x6a-builder.pl.drv'...
building '/nix/store/c539pzdghlrfcik2qymswm30ycbdj3yz-python3-3.9.13-env.drv'...
created 226 symlinks in user environment
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/a13x/src/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib/./get-nix-kconfig.py", line 61, in <module>
    main()
  File "/home/a13x/src/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib/./get-nix-kconfig.py", line 16, in main
    data = json.loads(proc.stdout)
  File "/nix/store/553d7c4xcwp9j1a1gb9cb1s9ry3x1pi9-python3-3.9.13/lib/python3.9/json/__init__.py", line 346, in loads
    return _default_decoder.decode(s)
  File "/nix/store/553d7c4xcwp9j1a1gb9cb1s9ry3x1pi9-python3-3.9.13/lib/python3.9/json/decoder.py", line 337, in decode
    obj, end = self.raw_decode(s, idx=_w(s, 0).end())
  File "/nix/store/553d7c4xcwp9j1a1gb9cb1s9ry3x1pi9-python3-3.9.13/lib/python3.9/json/decoder.py", line 355, in raw_decode
    raise JSONDecodeError("Expecting value", s, err.value) from None
json.decoder.JSONDecodeError: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0)
```

It looks like ` json.loads()` didn't manage to handle the output of `nix search`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/106462796?v=4" width="50">[o8opi](https://github.com/o8opi) commented at [2022-07-16 11:53](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64#issuecomment-1186164603):

this should work better now

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/106462796?v=4" width="50">[o8opi](https://github.com/o8opi) commented at [2022-07-17 21:53](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64#issuecomment-1186613685):

I have tested in an Ubuntu-20.04 container and it worked for me, can share Dockerfile if needed :)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-07-21 19:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/64#issuecomment-1191862516):

Hello @o8opi,

Now it works better, but gives a bunch of other errors:
```
created 223 symlinks in user environment
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_5_10_hardened.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_5_15_hardened.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_5_18_hardened.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_hardened.kernel
error: Package ‘linux-4.14.180-176’ in /nix/store/xcba8ikxvdzw7ycg5ncnfq37w9491cn9-source/pkgs/os-specific/linux/kernel/linux-hardkernel-4.14.nix:4 is not supported on ‘x86_64-linux’, refusing to evaluate.

       a) To temporarily allow packages that are unsupported for this system, you can use an environment variable
          for a single invocation of the nix tools.

            $ export NIXPKGS_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_SYSTEM=1

        Note: For `nix shell`, `nix build`, `nix develop` or any other Nix 2.4+
        (Flake) command, `--impure` must be passed in order to read this
        environment variable.

       b) For `nixos-rebuild` you can set
         { nixpkgs.config.allowUnsupportedSystem = true; }
       in configuration.nix to override this.

       c) For `nix-env`, `nix-build`, `nix-shell` or any other Nix command you can add
         { allowUnsupportedSystem = true; }
       to ~/.config/nixpkgs/config.nix.
(use '--show-trace' to show detailed location information)
failed to build legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_hardkernel_latest.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_latest.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_latest-libre.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_lqx.kernel
error: Package ‘linux-5.18.12-bcachefs-unstable-2022-04-25’ in /nix/store/xcba8ikxvdzw7ycg5ncnfq37w9491cn9-source/pkgs/os-specific/linux/kernel/linux-testing-bcachefs.nix:15 is marked as broken, refusing to evaluate.

       a) To temporarily allow broken packages, you can use an environment variable
          for a single invocation of the nix tools.

            $ export NIXPKGS_ALLOW_BROKEN=1

        Note: For `nix shell`, `nix build`, `nix develop` or any other Nix 2.4+
        (Flake) command, `--impure` must be passed in order to read this
        environment variable.

       b) For `nixos-rebuild` you can set
         { nixpkgs.config.allowBroken = true; }
       in configuration.nix to override this.

       c) For `nix-env`, `nix-build`, `nix-shell` or any other Nix command you can add
         { allowBroken = true; }
       to ~/.config/nixpkgs/config.nix.
(use '--show-trace' to show detailed location information)
failed to build legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_testing_bcachefs.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_xanmod.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_xanmod_latest.kernel
extract-vmlinux: Cannot find vmlinux.
Usage: extract-ikconfig <kernel-image>
failed to extract config from legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.linuxPackages_zen.kernel
```

I see at least three different kinds of errors here.
Could you have a look?

I would also ask you to rebase your branch over `origin/master`.

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#63 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63) `closed`: Fix getting Nix kconfig (contrib)
**Labels**: `bug`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2022-04-27 23:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63):

Hello @Mic92, could you help with this Nix problem?

I tested the installation of `kconfig-hardened-check` in a Docker container with Ubuntu 20.04.4 LTS.

It failed with the following error:

```
a13x@dc92d9d74557:~/src/1/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib$ ./get-nix-kconfig.py 
these 50 paths will be fetched (94.58 MiB download, 374.80 MiB unpacked):
  /nix/store/058drky7qcyd04rzqcmxh86xmifw96dx-glibc-2.34-115-bin
  /nix/store/1442kn5q9ah0bhhqm99f8nr76diczqgm-gnused-4.8
  /nix/store/19xbyxc31snlk60cil7cx6l4xw126ids-gcc-11.2.0
  /nix/store/4r26nvzfa1qfjaqgr2bpw2fz8c6qnk3s-gnutar-1.34
  /nix/store/58pwclg9yr437h0pfgrnbd0jis8fqasd-gcc-wrapper-11.2.0
  /nix/store/5h6q8cmqjd8iqpd99566hrg2a56pwdkc-acl-2.3.1
  /nix/store/6rbwy3mf0w8z119bwqs7dcrc2vyql9sf-expand-response-params
  /nix/store/7b2vmi7cq7lzw8g6kaihzg2kyilj4slm-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-dev
  /nix/store/87xq1difvspida4391y23vylkjdcgllf-linux-headers-5.16
  /nix/store/9l06npv9sp8avdraahzi4kqhcp607d8p-tzdata-2022a
  /nix/store/9pxskbhf92x9cxvg87nbzw2q1kmkrym6-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-info
  /nix/store/9wq21cbqsxpdx4dk0q6gab00fcir04d1-gzip-1.12
  /nix/store/a0k6rfn47h9f69p15pg415x6pfpxhsl5-gdbm-1.23
  /nix/store/a5xpjds3mlln26469h72v1jmd00jq6lv-xz-5.2.5
  /nix/store/ayrsyv7npr0lcbann4k9lxr19x813f0z-glibc-2.34-115
  /nix/store/b36ilvc5hhfpcp7kv1kvrkgcxxpmxfsd-zlib-1.2.12
  /nix/store/bavmqg7c4366hbiccpsdawbilh68dajy-xz-5.2.5-bin
  /nix/store/bndvc0y3v4djij152wiqbyn13zs2xivy-pcre-8.45
  /nix/store/bqkx3pi50phcglv0l551jhp96bq8njl0-gnugrep-3.7
  /nix/store/c7062r0rh84w3v77pqwdcggrsdlvy1df-findutils-4.9.0
  /nix/store/clkdigybx5w29rjxnwnsk76q49gb12k7-ncurses-6.3
  /nix/store/d60gkg5dkw4y5kc055n4m0xyvcjz65im-bash-interactive-5.1-p16
  /nix/store/dgic5ks4yixhh0havidjwd02rskmqlgp-binutils-wrapper-2.38
  /nix/store/dxj6b99zh4fh5z65rqirmcfvffxx5ig0-readline-8.1p2
  /nix/store/f2fnhhjanmxganm3xa5inwgvi6wj2ran-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-doc
  /nix/store/fcd0m68c331j7nkdxvnnpb8ggwsaiqac-bash-5.1-p16
  /nix/store/gm6q7jmajjmnwd29wgbq2jm3x37vsw3h-libffi-3.4.2
  /nix/store/hgl0ydlkgs6y6hx9h7k209shw3v7z77j-coreutils-9.0
  /nix/store/hym1n0ygqp9wcm7pxn4sfrql3fg7xa09-python3-3.9.12
  /nix/store/ik4qlj53grwmg7avzrfrn34bjf6a30ch-libunistring-1.0
  /nix/store/jm3nxvmxcm5nvalbv28acvygismcykvj-gnumake-4.3
  /nix/store/k3wp5kdxwa4ysb6nh5y9yll5n30cja5m-patch-2.7.6
  /nix/store/m2vh2ny7bqpwij1gpmvl5gxj7y4dgr4f-binutils-2.38
  /nix/store/n239ln3v669s5fkir2fd8niqawyg6qrv-attr-2.5.1
  /nix/store/pmyiksh5sgqzakbr84qsfxqy8fgirmic-stdenv-linux
  /nix/store/psijdi9190zgbp053y6dj3ax4y2l70gk-gcc-11.2.0-lib
  /nix/store/pvn23vycg674bj6nypjcfyhqbr85rqxa-glibc-2.34-115-dev
  /nix/store/qd3g8rk5hx5zkb70idjh6fa12sh6bipg-mailcap-2.1.53
  /nix/store/qvs678k05yrv566dmqdnxfbzi4s6ir1n-sqlite-3.38.2
  /nix/store/rf3j3p8cvn0dr5wdl65ns9f8wnlca8h6-readline-6.3p08
  /nix/store/sj2plsn7wz94dkwvg1wlb11pjch6r70v-diffutils-3.8
  /nix/store/v8vpzh3slc5hm4d9id5bim4dsb4d2ndh-openssl-1.1.1n
  /nix/store/v990x4cib4dssspn4778rlz46jmm3a9k-expat-2.4.7
  /nix/store/vz05jxs509mgp5i5jbrgvgvg4a2p3a3m-ed-1.18
  /nix/store/w3zngkrag7vnm7v1q8vnqb71q6a1w8gn-libidn2-2.3.2
  /nix/store/wcj03nlvxsjrc1cmpl2nhpn80l5wvf8j-gawk-5.1.1
  /nix/store/x6jr3j9hxs8ld8cy69gy9aykrm3iz8rv-patchelf-0.14.5
  /nix/store/yjndwl7872iqhw7m97gv7kwgwd5d66s5-bzip2-1.0.6.0.2-bin
  /nix/store/zf03nlnk9h724gz7qzzbrzyqif8gbwhq-bzip2-1.0.6.0.2
  /nix/store/zghsxxqb2gyz460q4r7jfdc2lpg3rgjw-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-man
copying path '/nix/store/f2fnhhjanmxganm3xa5inwgvi6wj2ran-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-doc' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/9pxskbhf92x9cxvg87nbzw2q1kmkrym6-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-info' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/zghsxxqb2gyz460q4r7jfdc2lpg3rgjw-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-man' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/ik4qlj53grwmg7avzrfrn34bjf6a30ch-libunistring-1.0' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/87xq1difvspida4391y23vylkjdcgllf-linux-headers-5.16' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/w3zngkrag7vnm7v1q8vnqb71q6a1w8gn-libidn2-2.3.2' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/qd3g8rk5hx5zkb70idjh6fa12sh6bipg-mailcap-2.1.53' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/ayrsyv7npr0lcbann4k9lxr19x813f0z-glibc-2.34-115' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/9l06npv9sp8avdraahzi4kqhcp607d8p-tzdata-2022a' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/n239ln3v669s5fkir2fd8niqawyg6qrv-attr-2.5.1' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/fcd0m68c331j7nkdxvnnpb8ggwsaiqac-bash-5.1-p16' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/5h6q8cmqjd8iqpd99566hrg2a56pwdkc-acl-2.3.1' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/zf03nlnk9h724gz7qzzbrzyqif8gbwhq-bzip2-1.0.6.0.2' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/hgl0ydlkgs6y6hx9h7k209shw3v7z77j-coreutils-9.0' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/yjndwl7872iqhw7m97gv7kwgwd5d66s5-bzip2-1.0.6.0.2-bin' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/sj2plsn7wz94dkwvg1wlb11pjch6r70v-diffutils-3.8' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/vz05jxs509mgp5i5jbrgvgvg4a2p3a3m-ed-1.18' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/6rbwy3mf0w8z119bwqs7dcrc2vyql9sf-expand-response-params' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/v990x4cib4dssspn4778rlz46jmm3a9k-expat-2.4.7' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/c7062r0rh84w3v77pqwdcggrsdlvy1df-findutils-4.9.0' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/wcj03nlvxsjrc1cmpl2nhpn80l5wvf8j-gawk-5.1.1' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/psijdi9190zgbp053y6dj3ax4y2l70gk-gcc-11.2.0-lib' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/a0k6rfn47h9f69p15pg415x6pfpxhsl5-gdbm-1.23' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/058drky7qcyd04rzqcmxh86xmifw96dx-glibc-2.34-115-bin' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/jm3nxvmxcm5nvalbv28acvygismcykvj-gnumake-4.3' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/pvn23vycg674bj6nypjcfyhqbr85rqxa-glibc-2.34-115-dev' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/1442kn5q9ah0bhhqm99f8nr76diczqgm-gnused-4.8' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/4r26nvzfa1qfjaqgr2bpw2fz8c6qnk3s-gnutar-1.34' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/9wq21cbqsxpdx4dk0q6gab00fcir04d1-gzip-1.12' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/gm6q7jmajjmnwd29wgbq2jm3x37vsw3h-libffi-3.4.2' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/clkdigybx5w29rjxnwnsk76q49gb12k7-ncurses-6.3' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/v8vpzh3slc5hm4d9id5bim4dsb4d2ndh-openssl-1.1.1n' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/k3wp5kdxwa4ysb6nh5y9yll5n30cja5m-patch-2.7.6' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/x6jr3j9hxs8ld8cy69gy9aykrm3iz8rv-patchelf-0.14.5' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/bndvc0y3v4djij152wiqbyn13zs2xivy-pcre-8.45' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/rf3j3p8cvn0dr5wdl65ns9f8wnlca8h6-readline-6.3p08' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/bqkx3pi50phcglv0l551jhp96bq8njl0-gnugrep-3.7' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/dxj6b99zh4fh5z65rqirmcfvffxx5ig0-readline-8.1p2' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/a5xpjds3mlln26469h72v1jmd00jq6lv-xz-5.2.5' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/d60gkg5dkw4y5kc055n4m0xyvcjz65im-bash-interactive-5.1-p16' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/bavmqg7c4366hbiccpsdawbilh68dajy-xz-5.2.5-bin' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/7b2vmi7cq7lzw8g6kaihzg2kyilj4slm-bash-interactive-5.1-p16-dev' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/b36ilvc5hhfpcp7kv1kvrkgcxxpmxfsd-zlib-1.2.12' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/m2vh2ny7bqpwij1gpmvl5gxj7y4dgr4f-binutils-2.38' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/19xbyxc31snlk60cil7cx6l4xw126ids-gcc-11.2.0' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/dgic5ks4yixhh0havidjwd02rskmqlgp-binutils-wrapper-2.38' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/qvs678k05yrv566dmqdnxfbzi4s6ir1n-sqlite-3.38.2' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/58pwclg9yr437h0pfgrnbd0jis8fqasd-gcc-wrapper-11.2.0' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
copying path '/nix/store/hym1n0ygqp9wcm7pxn4sfrql3fg7xa09-python3-3.9.12' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...

copying path '/nix/store/pmyiksh5sgqzakbr84qsfxqy8fgirmic-stdenv-linux' from 'https://cache.nixos.org'...
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/a13x/src/1/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib/./get-nix-kconfig.py", line 30, in <module>
    main()
  File "/home/a13x/src/1/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib/./get-nix-kconfig.py", line 16, in main
    data = json.loads(proc.stdout)
  File "/nix/store/hym1n0ygqp9wcm7pxn4sfrql3fg7xa09-python3-3.9.12/lib/python3.9/json/__init__.py", line 346, in loads
    return _default_decoder.decode(s)
  File "/nix/store/hym1n0ygqp9wcm7pxn4sfrql3fg7xa09-python3-3.9.12/lib/python3.9/json/decoder.py", line 337, in decode
    obj, end = self.raw_decode(s, idx=_w(s, 0).end())
  File "/nix/store/hym1n0ygqp9wcm7pxn4sfrql3fg7xa09-python3-3.9.12/lib/python3.9/json/decoder.py", line 355, in raw_decode
    raise JSONDecodeError("Expecting value", s, err.value) from None
json.decoder.JSONDecodeError: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0)
```

Hoping for your help with Nix, @Mic92!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/106462796?v=4" width="50">[o8opi](https://github.com/o8opi) commented at [2022-12-28 21:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63#issuecomment-1366920764):

Hello, is this still relevant ?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-12-28 22:11](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63#issuecomment-1366954405):

Hello @o8opi,

It would be nice to fix this script or remove it.

Is it possible to get a Nix kernel config somewhere without building the Linux kernel for NixOS?

Thank you!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2022-12-29 10:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63#issuecomment-1367202486):

The script was fixed in https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/78

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2022-12-29 10:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63#issuecomment-1367203173):

I don't think the kernel config can be easily get otherwise. It is generated by nix code depending on enabled features and kernel versions.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2022-12-29 10:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63#issuecomment-1367204327):

However there is https://github.com/cachix/install-nix-action combined https://github.com/marketplace/actions/create-pull-request could automatically keep this up-to-date.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-01-19 16:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/63#issuecomment-1397233625):

Hello @Mic92,

Closing, this issue has been fixed in https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/77.

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#62 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/62) `merged`: Add BLK_DEV_FD_RAWCMD
**Labels**: `kernel_maintainer_feedback`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/150761?u=f98bb82be5009ecefd6ee9bc3d60fcf082f8cf49&v=4" width="50">[evdenis](https://github.com/evdenis) opened issue at [2022-04-27 18:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/62):

See commit torvalds/linux@233087ca0636 ("floppy: disable FDRAWCMD by default")

Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2022-04-27 18:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/62#issuecomment-1111331853):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/62?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#62](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/62?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (bbe60e7) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/61bfef8931bcefc1abb6d3d46e169c8372ce729b?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (61bfef8) will **increase** coverage by `0.01%`.
> The diff coverage is `100.00%`.

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #62      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.32%   90.33%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         589      590       +1     
  Branches      137      137              
==========================================
+ Hits          532      533       +1     
  Misses         29       29              
  Partials       28       28              
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `90.33% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/62?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/62/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `90.34% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/62?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/62?src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Last update [61bfef8...bbe60e7](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/62?src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-04-28 11:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/62#issuecomment-1112102364):

Thanks @evdenis!
👍


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#61 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/61) `closed`: Let user select configs without absolute path

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/29118926?v=4" width="50">[dmknght](https://github.com/dmknght) opened issue at [2022-03-26 15:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/61):

## System info:
Parrot OS 5.0, python 3
kconfig-hardened-check version 5.14
I've tried all options in help menu and I didn't find anything similar to my idea

## Idea
1. Create an option to list all config. Maybe it supports search as well.
2. Let user select module without absolute path. For example, when I do Debian packaging for this tool, the configs are at `/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kconfig_hardened_check/config_files/` and users don't know where to search configs / modules.
Solution:
1. Add a `__init__.py` file into `config_files`. By this, folder `configs` is a module of the whole project.
2. You can do `from kconfig-hardnerned-check.<any path> import config_files`. Absolute path of the module will be `config_files.__path__[0]`
3. All modules are listed by `walk_dir(config_files.__path__[0])`. By this, you can have an option in argv to list all configs
4. When user provide `-c` flag, like `-c distros/debian.config`, absolute path is merged with `config_files.__path__[0]` so there's no need to know absolute path.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-04-08 18:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/61#issuecomment-1093149751):

Hello @dmknght,

Thanks for writing!

Actually, the config files in `kconfig_hardened_check/config_files/` are provided as examples that are used for developing and testing of this tool. These configs are updated not that often, they don't cover all major distros.

The main use case for users is to check their own kernel config. The example from Fedora:
```
./bin/kconfig-hardened-check -c /boot/config-5.16.11-100.fc34.x86_64
```
So I don't think users care about the location of these example config files. How do you think?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/29118926?v=4" width="50">[dmknght](https://github.com/dmknght) commented at [2022-05-06 05:37](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/61#issuecomment-1119275930):

> Hello @dmknght,
> 
> Thanks for writing!
> 
> Actually, the config files in `kconfig_hardened_check/config_files/` are provided as examples that are used for developing and testing of this tool. These configs are updated not that often, they don't cover all major distros.
> 
> The main use case for users is to check their own kernel config. The example from Fedora:
> 
> ```
> ./bin/kconfig-hardened-check -c /boot/config-5.16.11-100.fc34.x86_64
> ```
> 
> So I don't think users care about the location of these example config files. How do you think?

Hello! Sorry for very late reply. I had issue with my mail notification LuL. Anyway, I think that's a very interesting point that i didn't know. In this case, I think `kconfig-hardened-check` can have a flag like `auto check` to do the command automatically. The workflow is like:
1. Check if there is `config file` that matches `kernel version` at `/boot/`
2. If exists, run the system check automatically
3. If doesn't exists, tells user to try some examples. In this case, i think absolute path of examples is needed.

What do you think about this? To me I think it's easier to user to just do `run and read` the result without thinking about wrong profiles.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2022-05-07 12:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/61#issuecomment-1120197457):

Some distros don't expose kernel config at /boot and I don't see why average user would be interested in checking example config which is probably totally unrelated to their system.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-05-08 13:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/61#issuecomment-1120420075):

I agree with @Bernhard40.

@dmknght, I would avoid adding the code for searching the kernel config on a local machine.

Moreover, Linux kernel developers often use the `kconfig-hardened-check` tool for the configs of the kernels that they develop (not the config of the local machine).

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/29118926?v=4" width="50">[dmknght](https://github.com/dmknght) commented at [2022-05-09 08:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/61#issuecomment-1120822656):

> @dmknght, I would avoid adding the code for searching the kernel config on a local machine.

Well it's not that hard. From what i checked, you just need to get kernel version, and map the path `/boot/config-<kernel version>`

> Moreover, Linux kernel developers often use the kconfig-hardened-check tool for the configs of the kernels that they develop (not the config of the local machine).
Well i see. So i guess I can close the issue now because the scope is different.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#60 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/60) `merged`: UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL not available on ARM

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7194705?u=be917f131efce086bc9785f2b606107afe2d2fc3&v=4" width="50">[cyanidium](https://github.com/cyanidium) opened issue at [2022-03-26 14:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/60):

ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL is not selected for arm arch, which prevents selection of CONFIG_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm/Kconfig
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/lib/Kconfig.ubsan

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2022-03-26 14:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/60#issuecomment-1079705754):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/60?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#60](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/60?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (b9c72b3) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/b0b91b58adc962da01c7fc45cef662ae1b462828?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (b0b91b5) will **increase** coverage by `0.01%`.
> The diff coverage is `100.00%`.

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #60      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.46%   91.48%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         586      587       +1     
  Branches      133      134       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits          536      537       +1     
  Misses         25       25              
  Partials       25       25              
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `91.48% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/60?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/60/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `91.50% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/60?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/60?src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Last update [b0b91b5...b9c72b3](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/60?src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-04-08 16:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/60#issuecomment-1093077908):

Hello @cyanidium, 

Thanks for your PR.

You are right, UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL is not available for arm for now.
See the discussion for more info https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/25#issuecomment-928154612

I'm going to merge your branch.
Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#59 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/59) `merged`: EFI mitigations can't be enabled if EFI is not set

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7194705?u=be917f131efce086bc9785f2b606107afe2d2fc3&v=4" width="50">[cyanidium](https://github.com/cyanidium) opened issue at [2022-03-15 12:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/59):

Both EFI_DISABLE_PCI_DMA and RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION depend on EFI, but if EFI is not set, neither config is required.

Useful on embedded devices that use u-boot or similar instead of EFI.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#58 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/58) `closed`: CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS and CONFIG_MODULES not in sync

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11868071?u=d7a5841263276e1f323827fc21b04345df594a60&v=4" width="50">[Churam](https://github.com/Churam) opened issue at [2022-01-17 17:17](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/58):

It seems there is a problem with the current stable kernel (5.15.14 at the date of this issue). 

The kernel option TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS is defined in my config as: 
```
Symbol: TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS [=n]
Type  : bool
Defined at init/Kconfig:2301
Prompt: Trim unused exported kernel symbols
Depends on: MODULES [=n] && !COMPILE_TEST [=n]
Visible if: MODULES [=n] && !COMPILE_TEST [=n] && EXPERT [=y]
Location: 
(1) -> Enable loadable module support (MODULES [=n])

```
Or the script (with the setup above) outputs me: 
CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS                     |      y      |    my    | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: not found

But as the hardening requires to have MODULES = n (is not set) it is impossible to set TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS through menuconfig.



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-01-21 15:53](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/58#issuecomment-1018632628):

@Churam thanks for your report!

Fixed.

The output for your case now:
```
CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS   |   y   |   my   | cut_attack_surface |  OK: CONFIG_MODULES "is not set"
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11868071?u=d7a5841263276e1f323827fc21b04345df594a60&v=4" width="50">[Churam](https://github.com/Churam) commented at [2022-01-24 11:04](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/58#issuecomment-1019976819):

Fix OK
Output is now as expected, closing issue


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#57 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/57) `open`: CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2 = m appears also to be correct
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/15869?u=31910a5ba7214eaf12efd39cbdf71b69af1b7db0&v=4" width="50">[brandonweeks](https://github.com/brandonweeks) opened issue at [2022-01-10 09:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/57):

```
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU = y
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2 = m
```
appears to correctly setup the AMD v2 IOMMU on supported hardware (tested on NixOS) and is the config option used by [Fedora/RHEL](https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/blob/os-build/redhat/configs/common/generic/x86/x86_64/CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2).

If you agree with this assessment, any pointers on how to add an OR to the existing AND conditional for `CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU`?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-01-21 15:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/57#issuecomment-1018612527):

Hello @brandonweeks 

Could you give any details on tests you mentioned?

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#56 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/56) `open`: Add RISC-V support
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) opened issue at [2021-11-21 12:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/56):

It would be nice to have `kconfig-hardened-check` adapted for `RISC-V` kernel configs.  

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/125879?v=4" width="50">[cybernet](https://github.com/cybernet) commented at [2021-12-24 13:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/56#issuecomment-1000842582):

👍


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#55 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/55) `closed`: Should slub_debug be considered a hardening cmd line parameter?
**Labels**: `question`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3797768?v=4" width="50">[morfikov](https://github.com/morfikov) opened issue at [2021-10-28 21:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/55):

[According to this](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/2b5bf3548b6a7edbf7cd74278d570b658f9ab34a/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py#L13-L21), the `slub_debug` is a hardening cmd line parameter. But when you use this option, you will see the following in the syslog on newer kernels:

```
kernel: **********************************************************
kernel: **   NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE   **
kernel: **                                                      **
kernel: ** This system shows unhashed kernel memory addresses   **
kernel: ** via the console, logs, and other interfaces. This    **
kernel: ** might reduce the security of your system.            **
kernel: **                                                      **
kernel: ** If you see this message and you are not debugging    **
kernel: ** the kernel, report this immediately to your system   **
kernel: ** administrator!                                       **
kernel: **                                                      **
kernel: **   NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE   **
kernel: **********************************************************
```
More [here](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=792702911f581f7793962fbeb99d5c3a1b28f4c3) and [here](https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/patch/20210214161348.369023-4-timur@kernel.org/).

So, should users use slub_debug=FZP or slub_debug=ZP?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-11-09 19:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/55#issuecomment-964465176):

Hello @morfikov!

My code comment in `__init__.py` is a note for future development within https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/issues/46. It's not a final decision.

Currently I consider `slub_debug=F` and `slub_debug=Z` as debugging features, as you can see at the [Linux Kernel Defence Map](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/linux-kernel-defence-map).

And I will have to learn more about `init_on_free` and `slub_debug=P` to choose between them.

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#54 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/54) `merged`: Add BLK_DEV_FD
**Labels**: `kernel_maintainer_feedback`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/150761?u=f98bb82be5009ecefd6ee9bc3d60fcf082f8cf49&v=4" width="50">[evdenis](https://github.com/evdenis) opened issue at [2021-09-10 15:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/54):

Floppy driver was written many years ago. It was designed to
work in a single-threaded environment (many global variables)
and to work on real hardware which has significant delays
(floppy drives are slow). Nowadays, when we use virtual
devices (which are fast) and multi-core cpus, floppy driver
shows its problems including deadlocking/livelocking and
other security-related issues. However, we can't just
rewrite it because lack of real hardware and compatibility
with existing userspace tools, many of which rely on
undocumented driver behavior.

Here are some CVEs related to floppy driver:
 - CVE-2014-1737 privileges escalation in FDRAWCMD ioctl
 - CVE-2014-1738 info leak from kernel heap in FDRAWCMD ioctl
 - CVE-2018-7755 kernel pointer lead in FDGETPRM ioctl
 - CVE-2019-14283 integer overflow and out-of-bounds read in set_geometry
 - CVE-2019-14284 denial of service in setup_format_params
 - CVE-2020-9383 out-of-bounds read in set_fdc
 - CVE-2021-20261 race condition in floppy_revalidate,
   floppy_check_events

As pointed by Linus [1]:
> The only users are virtualization, and even they are going away
> because floppies are so small, and other things have become more
> standard anyway (ie USB disk) or easier to emulate (NVMe or whatever).
> So I suspect the only reason floppy is used even in that area is just
> legacy "we haven't bothered updating to anything better and we have
> old scripts and images that work".

CONFIG_BLK_DEV_FD is not enabled in defconfig on x86_64.
Many distros already require root access for /dev/fd0.
However, qemu (5.2.0) still enables floppy device by default.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=whFAAV_TOLFNnj=wu4mD2L9OvgB6n2sKDdmd8buMKFv8A@mail.gmail.com/

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2021-09-10 21:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/54#issuecomment-917220941):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#54](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (17d70c5) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/b54dca6a96b7a07d3d1aec56b5a1df6386bb7d61?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (b54dca6) will **increase** coverage by `0.01%`.
> The diff coverage is `100.00%`.

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=GOOVXMV5Kb&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #54      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.95%   92.96%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         511      512       +1     
  Branches      116      116              
==========================================
+ Hits          475      476       +1     
  Misses         18       18              
  Partials       18       18              
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `92.96% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `93.02% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54?src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Last update [b54dca6...17d70c5](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/54?src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-09-10 21:28](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/54#issuecomment-917223378):

Thanks a lot @evdenis :)
The pull request is merged.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#53 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/53) `closed`: Justification of UBSAN-related choices?
**Labels**: `kernel_maintainer_feedback`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/601177?v=4" width="50">[equaeghe](https://github.com/equaeghe) opened issue at [2021-09-04 21:22](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/53):

Currently, `UBSAN`-related choices are as follows:

https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/4dc94be8a5e0c3a0889679f7079aa93c7f44464d/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py#L421-L423

It is unclear to me why the last two are chosen. `UBSAN_MISC=y` seems like a good thing, as it enables more checks. `UBSAN_TRAP=y` seems like a bad thing, as it enables denial of service attacks. Furthermore, if I understand things correctly, `UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL=y` would be needed to practically activate `UBSAN`.

Is my understanding correct, or a misunderstanding (which is perfectly possible). In the latter case, I would be grateful for a pointer to an appropriate resource.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-09-10 13:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/53#issuecomment-916912883):

Hello @equaeghe 

Thanks for your question.

Please have a look, @kees wrote about that in his article about security-related things in the Linux kernel 5.7:
https://outflux.net/blog/archives/2020/09/21/security-things-in-linux-v5-7/

Quote:
```
For runtime checking, the Undefined Behavior Sanitizer has an option for adding runtime array bounds checking
for catching things like this where the compiler cannot perform a static analysis of the index values.

...

It was, however, not separate (via kernel Kconfig) until Elena Petrova and I split it out into
CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS, which is fast enough for production kernel use. 

...

Since UBSAN (and the other Sanitizers) only WARN() by default, system owners need to
set panic_on_warn=1 too if they want to defend against attacks targeting these kinds of flaws.
Because of this, and to avoid bloating the kernel image with all the warning messages, I introduced
CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP which effectively turns these conditions into a BUG() without needing
additional sysctl settings.
```

Does that provide answers to your questions?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/601177?v=4" width="50">[equaeghe](https://github.com/equaeghe) commented at [2021-09-10 14:04](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/53#issuecomment-916929875):

Thanks, that explains why `UBSAN_TRAP=y`. I am still unclear why `UBSAN_MISC is not set` and why nothing is said about `UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-09-10 14:56](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/53#issuecomment-916967782):

It looks like other UBSAN modes are for kernel debugging, not for hardening:
```
[*]   Perform checking for bit-shift overflows
[*]   Perform checking for integer divide-by-zero
[*]   Perform checking for non-boolean values used as boolean
[*]   Perform checking for out of bounds enum values
[*]   Perform checking for misaligned pointer usage
```
Previously they were collected under UBSAN_MISC, but now I see that they are separate since the kernel commit  c637693b20da8706b7f48d96882c9c80ae935151. I will have a closer look at them.

I will also test UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL behavior.

Thanks @equaeghe !

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1110841?u=e5e99e1ac8260e791433baa2423f7d173eea4c1c&v=4" width="50">[kees](https://github.com/kees) commented at [2021-09-10 18:50](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/53#issuecomment-917133371):

`UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL` is needed to gain coverage over the kernel as a whole. Otherwise, only opted-in things will have the UBSAN features applied.

I.e. for production workloads, I recommend:

```
CONFIG_UBSAN=y
CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS=y
CONFIG_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL=y
```

and depending on one's crash tolerances, either use `panic_on_warn=1` or `CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP=y`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-09-10 21:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/53#issuecomment-917219349):

Thank you very much @kees !


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#52 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/52) `closed`: Add RANDOMIZE_KSTACK_OFFSET_DEFAULT

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) opened issue at [2021-08-25 19:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/52):

Randomize kernel stack offset on syscall entry

The kernel stack offset can be randomized (after pt_regs) by
roughly 5 bits of entropy, frustrating memory corruption
attacks that depend on stack address determinism or
cross-syscall address exposures. This feature is controlled
by kernel boot param "randomize_kstack_offset=on/off", and this
config chooses the default boot state.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2021-08-25 19:46](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/52#issuecomment-905823752):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#52](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (5d12e64) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/57379d8c851656116e2b149e3f1d4003c17d22d9?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (57379d8) will **increase** coverage by `0.01%`.
> The diff coverage is `100.00%`.

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=GOOVXMV5Kb&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #52      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.87%   92.88%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         505      506       +1     
  Branches      115      115              
==========================================
+ Hits          469      470       +1     
  Misses         18       18              
  Partials       18       18              
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `92.88% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `92.94% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52?src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Last update [57379d8...5d12e64](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/52?src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-09-10 12:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/52#issuecomment-916859414):

Hi @anthraxx 

You might be busy, so I've made the fixes myself in the commit b54dca6a96b7a07d3d1aec56b5a1df6386bb7d61.
Hope you wouldn't mind.

Thanks!
Alexander

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2021-09-10 12:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/52#issuecomment-916860190):

@a13xp0p0v nah, i was just about to make it KSPP official hence the delay. should have communicated it. Will create a followup PR marking it as kspp soon :cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-09-10 13:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/52#issuecomment-916916530):

@anthraxx , ah, OK!

Sure, looking forward to your new pull request!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#51 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/51) `merged`: Added cbl-mariner kernel configuration file.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/25109036?u=507c0397c0e27f6fc1a1b3115f293c66b8056199&v=4" width="50">[Hacks4Snacks](https://github.com/Hacks4Snacks) opened issue at [2021-08-19 20:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/51):

Hello,

I have added the CBL-Mariner 1.0 distribution kernel configuration file.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-08-20 17:22](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/51#issuecomment-902842367):

Hello @Hacks4Snacks,
Could you please add the corresponding info to `kconfig_hardened_check/config_files/links.txt` and update your pull request?
Thank you!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/25109036?u=507c0397c0e27f6fc1a1b3115f293c66b8056199&v=4" width="50">[Hacks4Snacks](https://github.com/Hacks4Snacks) commented at [2021-08-20 17:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/51#issuecomment-902853201):

Sure thing! A link to the publicly available configuration has been added. @a13xp0p0v

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65553080?u=1e9e0de760ac0083c86dab588f627a0468cd714e&v=4" width="50">[codecov-commenter](https://github.com/codecov-commenter) commented at [2021-08-20 18:11](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/51#issuecomment-902869062):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/51?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) Report
> Merging [#51](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/51?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (a5686b1) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/38bde65d9df70a6b1ec772b93b07e98778cb7e34?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov) (38bde65) will **not change** coverage.
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/51/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=GOOVXMV5Kb&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/51?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)

```diff
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #51   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.87%   92.87%           
=======================================
  Files           3        3           
  Lines         505      505           
  Branches      115      115           
=======================================
  Hits          469      469           
  Misses         18       18           
  Partials       18       18           
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| functional_test | `92.87% <ø> (ø)` | |

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.


------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/51?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/51?src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Last update [38bde65...a5686b1](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/51?src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Alexander+Popov).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-08-20 18:22](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/51#issuecomment-902874845):

Merged. Thanks @Hacks4Snacks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#50 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/50) `open`: Allow redefining rules and expanding rule sets
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65050545?u=3d095cc7726e6bbf544ea4857c4223033ea90921&v=4" width="50">[petervanvugt](https://github.com/petervanvugt) opened issue at [2021-02-20 01:10](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/50):

I have found this tool quite helpful for quickly auditing embedded kernel configs. However, I've been finding that on embedded systems, I often have unique, application-specific security requirements:

- Embedded SoC vendors often have drivers that haven't made it into mainline that need to be checked (e.g. special HW RNG drivers, TZ drivers, PMIC drivers)
- The application may want to even further prioritize the correct operation of the system over performance or reliability (i.e. be willing to sacrifice battery life, CPU bandwidth, or resistance to DoS attacks to increase hardness)
- Since the required kernel functionality is fully defined (e.g. we know we'll _never_ need FAT filesystem support, don't want UART or kernel console driver, don't want USB gadget drivers, etc.), specify that unused drivers must be removed, lest they be leveraged by an attacker

I propose moving the config tests currently hard-coded in `__init__` into a set of yaml configs that can be included by a top-level config, like this:
```
# Includes are optional. Recursively walk through them, each test/error will be tagged with the source yaml
# Last included definition for a CONFIG_ is used
includes:
  - kspp.yaml
  - clipos.yaml
  - my.yaml
  - soc_a.yaml
# Tests
tests: !!seq [
  # Description of test
  RANDOMIZE_BASE: {
    # Test passes if CONFIG=value
    require: value,
    # Test passes if config not found, or "is not set"
    # require: is not set,
    # Optional: only test if other config is set to something
    if_config: MODULES,
    # Optional: only test specific kernel versions
    if_kernel_ver_gt_eq: 5.9,
    if_kernel_ver_lt: 5.8,
    # Optional: only test specific architectures
    if_arch: [X86_64, ARM64, X86_32],
  },
  # Example: require CONFIG_BUG=y
  BUG: {
    require: y,
  },
]
```
This would enable the config requirements to be layered, similar to the way kernel `defconfigs` can be layered (i.e. arch | Android | SoC vendor | device). I have some free time next week to implement this if you're open to it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-02-21 22:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/50#issuecomment-782937216):

Hello @petervanvugt,

Thanks for your initiative!

May I ask you to describe your use-case in details?
Which new requirements to `kconfig-hardened-check` behavior does it have?

Maybe a layered yaml that you propose is not a single solution for your use-case.

Moreover, I see that your use-case relates to this discussion: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/9#issuecomment-453810119
I think we can define some common solution.

Now about the syntax of check definitions.
- Currently all checks are grouped together in `kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py`.
- The check definitions are very short.

So I can observe them altogether. That helps me to understand and maintain these checks, which is not an easy task.
That is my main rationale.

Here you propose a completely different syntax.
I think we should discuss it before we start coding.
My thoughts:
1. Can we separate changing check definition syntax from changing `kconfig-hardened-check` behavior?
2. The given syntax example doesn't cover all check types that we have. Could you please write *all* current checks in your new syntax? I think we need that for making the decision.

(I'm travelling till the beginning of March, excuse me for delayed replies)

Best regards,
Alexander

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65050545?u=3d095cc7726e6bbf544ea4857c4223033ea90921&v=4" width="50">[petervanvugt](https://github.com/petervanvugt) commented at [2021-02-23 02:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/50#issuecomment-783833502):

Hi @a13xp0p0v ,

My use essentially falls into three cases:

1. My system has kconfigs **not in mainline that must always be set**.
 
_For example_, I might want to verify `PANIC_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION` [from Android](https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/7b49b86d3aa3d0c6400454a346bad1bbdf0cc78f%5E%21/) is enabled, as a defensive measure, because I'd rather the system immediately reboot at the first sign things are going off the rails, rather than risk being exploited by an attacker.

2. My system has kconfigs that **are in mainline, which are only in play for my hardware**.

_For example_, I may want to verify that my chip's `CONFIG_<HWVENDOR>_HWRANDOM` is enabled, because I'm using it as a cryptographically secure source of enropy.

3. My system has kconfigs that **are in mainline, which many/most users want enabled, but I want disabled**, because they add no benefit, and some nonzero risk.

_For example_, if I'm building an embedded system that uses NXP's i.MX line, I may want to verify `CONFIG_SERIAL_IMX` and `CONFIG_SERIAL_IMX_CONSOLE` are not enabled, because I want to be absolutely certain that the serial drivers and associated kernel console drivers haven't been included. Or, in a similar vein to **(1)**, I may want to enable `CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS` because I prioritize the correctness of my system over its availability.

[EDIT] Another, potentially stronger example I have run into recently is `PROC_PAGE_MONITOR`. The grsecurity patch set removes it for good reason, because access to `/proc/<pid>/smaps` can leak memory mapping information defeating ASLR. While there are mitigations all recent versions of the kernel to prevent insufficiently privileged processes from reading the map of a more privileged process, there have been a few race conditions and side channels that have been shown to circumvent this. So, it is reasonable that many users will want to disable this altogether. However, Android's *libmeminfo* needs to read this entry to compute process memory utilization, which is pretty hard to live without in some applications.

Can we serve all these use cases?

Clearly, there a few paths that could be taken here. We could add these requirements to the very compact representation in `kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py`. And for **(1)** and **(2)**, we could likely produce some combination of AND/OR kconfig checks (albeit sometimes non-trivial) that keeps the check from generating unnecessarily noisy output/false positives when run on configs for non-applicable hardware, or for kernels that don't fully track mainline. But this wouldn't solve for **(3)**, unless we require the tool be specially patched for such cases, or we add runtime args that turn on each of these checks.

If we want to be able to specify additional requirements at runtime and/or override requirements at runtime, we need a way to specify alternate requirements. This is why I am proposing representing the requirements as runtime configuration, rather than code. As to how we would represent some of the more complex requirements, I am proposing we break them down into requirements that each only check one config each, optionally only checked for some combination of specific architectures/kernel versions/`CONFIG_`s.

We could take configs whose names changed, such as this:
```
282     l += [OR(OptCheck('self_protection', 'defconfig', 'STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG', 'y'),
283              OptCheck('self_protection', 'defconfig', 'CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG', 'y'))]
```
and split them into two separate requirements, the first one for kernels >= 4.18, and the second one for kernels >= 3.14 and < 4.18.

The most complex requirement I see is this one:
```
307     if arch == 'ARM64':
...
310         l += [OR(OptCheck('self_protection', 'defconfig', 'HARDEN_EL2_VECTORS', 'y'),
311                  AND(OptCheck('self_protection', 'defconfig', 'RANDOMIZE_BASE', 'y'),
312                      VerCheck((5, 9))))] # HARDEN_EL2_VECTORS was included in RANDOMIZE_BASE in v5.9
```
which could be split into two requirements: one for `RANDOMIZE_BASE` on kernels >= 5.9 for ARM64, and a second check for `HARDEN_EL2_VECTORS` on older kernels >= 4.17 and < 5.9, also for ARM64. This would keep the requirements more readable in the long run.

What do you think?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-03-05 19:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/50#issuecomment-791625966):

@petervanvugt thanks a lot for describing your use-cases.
I think they match with [this one](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/9#issuecomment-453810119).
I want to make them possible.

I think `kconfig-hardened-check` should allow to override the default checks and append custom checks.
As a first step, we need some simple solution without changing the check description syntax.
Then we can ponder over the check description syntax.

I will experiment with that.
If you create any prototype, please share!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10352354?u=97ab0d446ea4204b959ae74734f8436c78de18e7&v=4" width="50">[egberts](https://github.com/egberts) commented at [2021-08-31 13:08](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/50#issuecomment-909221366):

other use case is prevent leakage of kernel pointers to log file, /proc directory files, or terminal output.  

Which is just a bunch of debugs and dmesg turned off. 


another one is the one provided by Whonix.org (a KSPP variant) which is more rigorous form of kernel security. 

Another one is for Spectre, et. al., mitigation and that has a bunch of config s as well.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2023-04-23 07:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/50#issuecomment-1518980838):

I implemented a part of this feature in `override_expected_value()`.

1. Implementation: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/c1090722157b531261a7cf0257f2dccb744bd93d

2. Unit-test: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/7194de8dfe8b6232166eded1516eb7fdd21c14ed

3.  Refinement of the CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS check using this feature: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/9bbea5b5bad45aac84aadf83536e31f9bd5e395e


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#49 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/49) `closed`: Some checks seem to be at odds with what the recommended settings are

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14325582?v=4" width="50">[wdormann](https://github.com/wdormann) opened issue at [2021-02-11 14:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/49):

I did not go through them all, but these in particular stuck out to me:

```
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE     | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT not "y"
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS                     | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK not "y"
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_RUNTIME_DISABLE             | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK not "y"
```

If I'm reading this properly, the recommended setting for these is ```not set```
However, the specific tests show as ```FAIL``` because they are ```not "y"```

Perhaps I'm just interpreting the report incorrectly, but at first glance it would appear that the check for the desired result is wrong.


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2021-02-11 15:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/49#issuecomment-777552022):

Hi @wdormann,

Thanks for your question.
The output is correct, let me explain.

```
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT                 |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
...
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE     | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT not "y"
```
`RANDSTRUCT` is disabled and the first check fails.
The `RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE` feature is dependent on `RANDSTRUCT`.
That's why the second check fails too with the explanation: `CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT not "y"`.

The situation with `STACKLEAK_METRICS` and `STACKLEAK_RUNTIME_DISABLE` is similar.
These checks fail because they depend on `STACKLEAK` which is not `"y"`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14325582?v=4" width="50">[wdormann](https://github.com/wdormann) commented at [2021-02-11 15:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/49#issuecomment-777570144):

Reading comprehension is apparently important!
Thanks for the clarification.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#48 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/48) `merged`: Do not check CONFIG_HARDEN_EL2_VECTORS for v5.9+

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/20878259?v=4" width="50">[pgils](https://github.com/pgils) opened issue at [2020-10-19 13:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/48):

The CONFIG_HARDEN_EL2_VECTORS Kconfig was removed in Linux 5.9: torvalds/linux@a59a2ed.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-21 15:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/48#issuecomment-713644849):

Hi @pgils, thanks for your pull request!

In fact HARDEN_EL2_VECTORS is now included in RANDOMIZE_BASE.
So simple check of the kernel version is not enough.

I think of making nested ComplexOptCheck possible to write such a rule.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-22 16:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/48#issuecomment-714601175):

Hi @pgils,
I added nested `ComplexOptChecks` support, merged and improved your rule.
Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/20878259?v=4" width="50">[pgils](https://github.com/pgils) commented at [2020-10-24 14:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/48#issuecomment-715921069):

thanks @a13xp0p0v, that's a nice feature!

Do you think it would be worthwhile using this for complex dependencies such as this one for `ARM64_PTR_AUTH` which currently `'FAIL'`s for my ARMv8-A config but is not selectable in `menuconfig`?:
```
(CC_HAS_SIGN_RETURN_ADDRESS [=n] || CC_HAS_BRANCH_PROT_PAC_RET [=n]) \
    && AS_HAS_PAC [=n] \
    && (LD_IS_LLD [=n] \
        || LD_VERSION [=235000000]>=233010000 
        || CC_IS_GCC [=y] && GCC_VERSION [=100200]<90100) \
    && (!CC_IS_CLANG [=n] || AS_HAS_CFI_NEGATE_RA_STATE [=y]) \
    && (!FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER [=n] || DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS [=n])
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-30 18:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/48#issuecomment-719717934):

@pgils, I guess you can't enable `ARM64_PTR_AUTH` because your current toolchain doesn't fit the requirements.
I would recommend improving the toolchain to get this nice feature.

See the output about my toolchain (in Fedora 32):
```
Depends on: (CC_HAS_SIGN_RETURN_ADDRESS [=y] || CC_HAS_BRANCH_PROT_PAC_RET [=y]) && AS_HAS_PAC [=y] && (LD_IS_LLD [=n] || LD_VERSION [=234000000]>=233010000 || CC_IS_GCC [=y] && GCC_VERSION [=90201]<90100) && (!CC_IS_CLANG [=n] || AS_HAS_CFI_NEGATE_RA_STATE [=y]) && (!FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER [=n] || DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS [=n])
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#47 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/47) `closed`: Please support /proc/config.gz

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3797768?v=4" width="50">[morfikov](https://github.com/morfikov) opened issue at [2020-10-13 14:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/47):

Currently only uncompressed `config-*` files in /boot/ are supported, but the current kernel config can also be accessed via `/proc/config.gz` . There's no way to use this file. Please support this path as well. 

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-14 12:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/47#issuecomment-708366463):

No problem, I would recommend this:
```
  # zcat /proc/config.gz > my.config
  # ./bin/kconfig-hardened-check -c my.config
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3797768?v=4" width="50">[morfikov](https://github.com/morfikov) commented at [2020-10-14 13:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/47#issuecomment-708410948):

Yes, I know, but this is the same as just using `-c /boot/config-*` . I thought of using `/proc/config.gz` because in such case a user would just use one file no matter what kernel version he's using. When you decompress the file first, it's an extra step which could be eliminated to simplify the whole process and make it easier.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-21 14:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/47#issuecomment-713629103):

Not all kernels provide the kernel config via `/proc/config.gz`.
For example, RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian don't do that.

I think we can use `zcat` separately, if we need.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#46 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46) `closed`: CPU specific options and the kernel cmd line 
**Labels**: `enhancement`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3797768?v=4" width="50">[morfikov](https://github.com/morfikov) opened issue at [2020-10-04 15:39](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46):

I have an Intel CPU, and when I run `kconfig-hardened-check` I get the following FAILs:

```
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2                          |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
```

It would be nice to have such CPU specific options hidden in the results. 

The behavior of some options can be controlled via the kernel cmd line, for instance:

```
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON                         |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_X86_VSYSCALL_EMULATION                | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
```

If a user set `slub_debug=FZP` and `vsyscall=none` in the kernel cmd line, I think he would achieve the same behavior. So, `kconfig-hardened-check` could check such kernel cmd line options before giving a FAIL. 

What do you think about such improvements? 

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-05 10:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46#issuecomment-703535817):

Hi @morfikov, thanks for your ideas.

1. I think we can group AMD_IOMMU recommendations with the corresponding ones for Intel using `OR`.
That would allow to avoid incorrect FAIL reports.

2. Parsing the kernel command line is a nice feature, it's on my TODO list. Moreover, we can get it from `/proc/cmdline` without additional privileges, which is nice.

I'm going to work on `kconfig-hardened-check` in the coming days.
If you want to participate, come on, your pull requests will be welcome!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-10-05 11:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46#issuecomment-703560552):

I always seen this project scope as simple kernel config checker not running system audit tool and I believe in old  unix mantra _Do One Thing and Do It Well_ so I'm skeptical about this additions. Taking  `/proc/cmdline` into account would mean same config would yield different result across systems. Having OR between amd and intel features make it less useful for distros which would want them all.

I think end users are capable of ignoring amd warnings when they have intel cpu and the opposite and also be aware o what they added to their cmdline.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-05 11:55](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46#issuecomment-703583549):

Hi @Bernhard40 

> Having OR between amd and intel features make it less useful for distros which would want them all.

Hm, you are right. I would agree on that point.

> Taking /proc/cmdline into account would mean same config would yield different result across systems

I would propose a compromise: add a separate flag for checking `/proc/cmdline` (disabled by default).
Is it OK for you?

In fact, I see checking cmdline parameters as a very big improvement.
There are several important cases when checking kernel config is not enough for a correct conclusion about the kernel security.
Examples: `mitigations`, `page_poison`, `init_on_alloc/init_on_free` and some others.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-10-05 20:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46#issuecomment-703873764):

> I would propose a compromise: add a separate flag for checking /proc/cmdline (disabled by default).
> Is it OK for you?

I don't mind if you are ready to maintain it.

> In fact, I see checking cmdline parameters as a very big improvement.
> There are several important cases when checking kernel config is not enough for a correct conclusion about the kernel security.

Yes but for now checking kernel config is the only thing this project ever promised (see readme). Conclusions about kernel security needs expanding the project scope which may be a rabbit hole as if you add cmdlne support then sysctl support should be next etc.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-10-05 21:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46#issuecomment-703886769):

@Bernhard40, I'll do my best.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2022-05-28 19:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/46#issuecomment-1140317020):

Now kconfig-hardened-check supports checking kernel cmdline parameters.

Cool!

```
usage: kconfig-hardened-check [-h] [--version] [-p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}]
                              [-c CONFIG]
                              [-l CMDLINE]
                              [-m {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}]

A tool for checking the security hardening options of the Linux kernel

optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --version             show program's version number and exit
  -p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}, --print {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}
                        print security hardening preferences for the selected architecture
  -c CONFIG, --config CONFIG
                        check the kernel kconfig file against these preferences
  -l CMDLINE, --cmdline CMDLINE
                        check the kernel cmdline file against these preferences
  -m {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}, --mode {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}
                        choose the report mode
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#45 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/45) `closed`: Request for command line options to display only OK/FAIL items

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14027079?u=379b0b0fcecea8820dea0f220dc09e3342cc4519&v=4" width="50">[fonic](https://github.com/fonic) opened issue at [2020-07-13 10:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/45):

I'd like to request command line options to reduce output to OK/FAIL items only, e.g.
```
-o, --ok      only list items checked as OK
-f, --fail    only list items checked as FAIL
```

This would make it much easier to work through the list of settings when hardening kernel configurations, especially if one only applies few at a time to test their impact.

This tool is great, many thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-07-15 11:55](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/45#issuecomment-658724615):

Hello @fonic,

Please see `show_ok` and `show_fail` modes:
```
usage: kconfig-hardened-check [-h] [--version] [-p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}]
                              [-c CONFIG]
                              [-m {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}]

Checks the hardening options in the Linux kernel config

optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --version             show program's version number and exit
  -p {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}, --print {X86_64,X86_32,ARM64,ARM}
                        print hardening preferences for selected architecture
  -c CONFIG, --config CONFIG
                        check the kernel config file against these preferences
  -m {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}, --mode {verbose,json,show_ok,show_fail}
                        choose the report mode
```

Output example:
```
$ ./bin/kconfig-hardened-check -c kconfig_hardened_check/config_files/distros/ubuntu-focal.config -m show_ok
[+] Special report mode: show_ok
[+] Config file to check: kconfig_hardened_check/config_files/distros/ubuntu-focal.config
[+] Detected architecture: X86_64
[+] Detected kernel version: 5.4
=========================================================================================================================
                 option name                 | desired val | decision |       reason       |   check result
=========================================================================================================================
CONFIG_BUG                                   |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG                            |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG                 |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX                     |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX                     |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_IOMMU_SUPPORT                         |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_MICROCODE                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_RETPOLINE                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_X86_SMAP                              |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES                           |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_X86_UMIP                              |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK: CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP "y"
CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION                  |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY                      |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU                           |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_VMAP_STACK                            |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE                        |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK                   |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_WX                              |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK                 |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SHUFFLE_PAGE_ALLOCATOR                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON              |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY                     |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG                            |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA512                     |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON               |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK: CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING "y"
CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR                 |    65536    |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM                       |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION               |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SECURITY                              |      y      |defconfig |  security_policy   |   OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA                         |      y      |   kspp   |  security_policy   |   OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_WRITABLE_HOOKS               | is not set  |    my    |  security_policy   |   OK: not found
CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM                 |      y      |  clipos  |  security_policy   |   OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM_EARLY           |      y      |  clipos  |  security_policy   |   OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_SAFESETID                    |      y      |    my    |  security_policy   |   OK
CONFIG_SECCOMP                               |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER                        |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM                         |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_METHOD                    | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK                            | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_DEVKMEM                               | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_X86_PTDUMP                            | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER                            | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK                        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT                           | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY                            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_X86_IOPL_IOPERM                       | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_MMIOTRACE_TEST                        | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_X86_INTEL_TSX_MODE_OFF                |      y      |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_INTEGRITY                             |      y      |defconfig |userspace_hardening |   OK

[+] Config check is finished: 'OK' - 57 / 'FAIL' - 79 (suppressed in output)
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14027079?u=379b0b0fcecea8820dea0f220dc09e3342cc4519&v=4" width="50">[fonic](https://github.com/fonic) commented at [2020-07-15 15:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/45#issuecomment-658827875):

Awesome, just tested it. That makes an already great tool even better. Many thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#44 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/44) `closed`: KSPP future in defconf linux distribution.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) opened issue at [2020-05-10 18:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/44):

Hello,

Im just curious what is the status of implementing KSPP to default kernel of linux GNU distribution ? Why linux distributions dont impelment for example most of kspp solutions for example steackleak or gcc hardeneing ? I use most of kspp feature based on your script Alexander and kernel works like a charm. Someone can explain to me ?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-05-11 11:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/44#issuecomment-626650276):

Some settings may affect performance, debugability, support for older userspace software, etc.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-05-18 09:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/44#issuecomment-630078520):

> Some settings may affect performance, debugability, support for older userspace software, etc.

I agree. 
Moreover, kernel self-protection features often give different performance penalty for different kinds of workload. It's difficult to find one kernel configuration that makes everyone happy.

I think Linux distributions could provide several kernel flavours for different purposes (e.g. generic, hardened, low-latency), to improve the situation.

I'm sure @kees has more insights about this.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1110841?u=e5e99e1ac8260e791433baa2423f7d173eea4c1c&v=4" width="50">[kees](https://github.com/kees) commented at [2020-05-18 15:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/44#issuecomment-630251690):

Yup! There is an open bug with KSPP to provide a defconfig fragment selection interface to the upstream kernel. You can see more details here:
https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/14

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) commented at [2020-05-20 21:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/44#issuecomment-631726899):

Okey. Thanks guys for your work and explanation.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#43 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/43) `merged`: Upgrading to Ubuntu 20.04 kernel config

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2020-05-05 09:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/43):

Hi @a13xp0p0v, 

Here is the Ubuntu kernel configuration update.

Best regards.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-05-06 21:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/43#issuecomment-624906056):

Thanks @HacKurx!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#42 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/42) `closed`: add tests

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3125993?v=4" width="50">[shamilbi](https://github.com/shamilbi) opened issue at [2020-04-14 12:10](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/42):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-04-24 23:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/42#issuecomment-619279461):

Hello @shamilbi !
Could you please describe the purpose of this PR?
By the way, tests for `kconfig-hardened-check` already exist as GitHub Actions (kind of continuous integration).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3125993?v=4" width="50">[shamilbi](https://github.com/shamilbi) commented at [2020-04-25 07:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/42#issuecomment-619335943):

> Hello @shamilbi !
> Could you please describe the purpose of this PR?
> By the way, tests for `kconfig-hardened-check` already exist as GitHub Actions (kind of continuous integration).

If files `tests/results/**/*.check` are proper results of kconfig-hardened-check applied to `kconfig_hardened_check/config_files/**/*.config` then this PR just compares output of a current kconfig_hardened_check (a current commit) with those proper results.
This gives you an exact diff in output from a last commit

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3125993?v=4" width="50">[shamilbi](https://github.com/shamilbi) commented at [2020-04-25 07:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/42#issuecomment-619337059):

[My workflows file](https://github.com/shamilbi/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/.github/workflows/test-master.yml)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-05-06 21:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/42#issuecomment-624897025):

Yes, sometimes I use ouput diff during the `kconfig-hardened-check` development.
However I don't think we need to commit the output results to the repository.
Thank you anyway.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#41 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/41) `merged`: Add CONFIG_INPUT_EVBUG

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2020-04-09 11:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/41):

Hi @a13xp0p0v,

The "evbug" module records key events and mouse movements in the system log.
Useful for debugging, this is a security threat, its use can be hijacked as a keylogger.

An attacker will be able to retrieve your passwords using this module.

Thank you.

Best regards,

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8655789?u=4694f03b321aa2287d9fe05155adcddb23272e81&v=4" width="50">[codecov-io](https://github.com/codecov-io) commented at [2020-04-09 11:39](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/41#issuecomment-611482374):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> Merging [#41](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41?src=pr&el=desc) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/100a39e2b01dadd2d27ed805cbe2b4ead7fc8b05&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.01%`.
> The diff coverage is `100.00%`.

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=GOOVXMV5Kb)](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41?src=pr&el=tree)

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #41      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.19%   93.20%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         470      471       +1     
  Branches      100      100              
==========================================
+ Hits          438      439       +1     
  Misses         17       17              
  Partials       15       15              
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| #functional_test | `93.20% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41?src=pr&el=tree) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41/diff?src=pr&el=tree#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `93.27% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41?src=pr&el=continue).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41?src=pr&el=footer). Last update [100a39e...a7e1677](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/41?src=pr&el=lastupdated). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#40 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/40) `merged`: pylint some code

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3125993?v=4" width="50">[shamilbi](https://github.com/shamilbi) opened issue at [2020-04-08 07:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/40):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-04-09 15:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/40#issuecomment-611595095):

Thanks @shamilbi.
Merged.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#39 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/39) `closed`: VerCheck: work with 3-digit kernel versions

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3125993?v=4" width="50">[shamilbi](https://github.com/shamilbi) opened issue at [2020-04-03 15:54](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/39):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8655789?u=4694f03b321aa2287d9fe05155adcddb23272e81&v=4" width="50">[codecov-io](https://github.com/codecov-io) commented at [2020-04-03 16:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/39#issuecomment-608535796):

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> Merging [#39](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39?src=pr&el=desc) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/bdac2c22b96b3a682801674efed92fddc8a347b0&el=desc) will **increase** coverage by `0.60%`.
> The diff coverage is `76.92%`.

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=GOOVXMV5Kb)](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39?src=pr&el=tree)

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #39      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.10%   93.70%   +0.60%     
==========================================
  Files           2        2              
  Lines         464      461       -3     
  Branches      100      101       +1     
==========================================
  Hits          432      432              
+ Misses         17       15       -2     
+ Partials       15       14       -1     
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| #functional_test | `93.70% <76.92%> (+0.60%)` | :arrow_up: |

| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39?src=pr&el=tree) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [kconfig\_hardened\_check/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39/diff?src=pr&el=tree#diff-a2NvbmZpZ19oYXJkZW5lZF9jaGVjay9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `93.80% <76.92%> (+0.61%)` | :arrow_up: |

------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39?src=pr&el=continue).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39?src=pr&el=footer). Last update [bdac2c2...97b9f90](https://codecov.io/gh/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/39?src=pr&el=lastupdated). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-04-06 13:32](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/39#issuecomment-609796546):

Hello @shamilbi,
Thanks for your work!

Yes, the kernel version consists of 3 numbers (not digits). 
Example from the main kernel Makefile:
```
VERSION = 5
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 0
```

New features come during the merge window of a new release of the mainline kernel.
It is defined by 2 numbers - `version` and `patchlevel`.
More info: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/2.Process.html
That's why currently only two numbers are checked and IMO that's enough.

Thanks!
Alexander

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-04-07 15:47](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/39#issuecomment-610465555):

@shamilbi, could you please move pylint fixes to a separate pull request?
I would like to merge it. Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3125993?v=4" width="50">[shamilbi](https://github.com/shamilbi) commented at [2020-04-08 08:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/39#issuecomment-610828778):

> @shamilbi, could you please move pylint fixes to a separate pull request?
> I would like to merge it. Thanks!
OK, done


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#38 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38) `closed`: graphics related options
**Labels**: `kernel_maintainer_feedback`


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5088003?v=4" width="50">[danvet](https://github.com/danvet) opened issue at [2020-04-03 08:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38):

Discussion with dmitry yukov on twitter:

CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY: Really old drivers from the 90s, with unfixable by design security holes. Unfortunately userspace for one modern driver (drm/nouveau) has used until just a few years ago by accident (we didn't delete all the old legacy driver setup code), so can't remove it all completely yet from kernel sources.

CONFIG_FB: Old display subsystem from the 90s, essentially unmaintained for over 10 years, would need serious effort to get up to speed with modern security best practices. This even includes the minimal fbdev emulation support built on top of drm gpu drivers, since the issues are in core fbdev code.

CONFIG_VT: Maybe the most disputed of all, but a lot of the console drivers this exposes to userspace are also from the 90s, and without CONFIG_FB this isn't really useful even for a desktop. A hardened distro definitely wants to make sure this is not set at all.



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-04-03 12:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-608395946):

> You need at least one virtual terminal device in order to make use of your keyboard and monitor. Therefore, only people configuring an embedded system would want to say N here in order to save some memory; the only way to log into such a system is then via a serial or network connection.

Is this comment from [CONFIG_VT](https://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/VT.html) wrong then?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5088003?v=4" width="50">[danvet](https://github.com/danvet) commented at [2020-04-03 12:32](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-608407778):

This comment hasn't been updated since decades (I checked historical trees ...). Nowadays Xorg and wayland compositors should be able to run without a VT. And kmscon (although abandoned due to lack of interest) can provide you a userspace implementation of VTs if you don't want to run X11 or wayland, using pseudo TTYs (like a terminal emulator).

A paranoid desktop distro imo should really not have VT enabled, and ofc whatever compositor they opt for (wayland, X11, or something like kmscon) needs to be walled in with a container.

But the comment is also correct in that without a userspace compositor you indeed will only be able to log in through the network or serial lines.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5088003?v=4" width="50">[danvet](https://github.com/danvet) commented at [2020-04-03 12:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-608412082):

Maybe an addition: If you want multi-user switching without CONFIG_VT then you need something like systemd's logind, so that the (forced) handover of input and output devices works correctly. But the VT subsystem's only role there is as an rpc between compositors, it has 0 functionality to actually force compositors to hand over devices to the next compositor (which is what logind does, using some of the new ioctl calls added specifically for this for both input and drm subsystems).

So if you want actual secure multi-user switching then you should be running with all that new stuff already anyway (and then CONFIG_VT really shouldn't be enabled, to prevent creating a mess).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-04-03 17:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-608553993):

Thanks @danvet !
Done: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/75bed5d6178375a64f93ced4795ee0cf47442df1

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5088003?v=4" width="50">[danvet](https://github.com/danvet) commented at [2020-04-03 17:24](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-608563651):

Thanks, looks neat. Hopefully this pushes a few more people to make this happen finally.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1095328?u=91175c42d0de0ad8ba9f70cc6b9a41bbfbe70de8&v=4" width="50">[dvyukov](https://github.com/dvyukov) commented at [2020-04-03 17:28](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-608565745):

@a13xp0p0v Are these enabled in any distros for which you have canned configs?

@danvet I just noticed on the current upstream HEAD:
```
$ rm .config
$ make defconfig
$ egrep "CONFIG_VT=|CONFIG_FB=" .config
CONFIG_VT=y
CONFIG_FB=y
```
So that may be the first step :)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-04-03 20:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-608639217):

@dvyukov, yes, these are enabled in many distributions:
```
AOSP_Pixel3A:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK

AmazonLinux2:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "m"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

ubuntu-bionic-generic:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

oracle-uek6:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

Archlinux-hardened:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

clearlinux-master:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

SLE15:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

openSUSE-15.1:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

pentoo-livecd:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

rhel-8.0:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   OK
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

nixpkgs-linux_hardened:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

debian-buster:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"

Alpinelinux-edge:
  CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY    | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_FB            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
  CONFIG_VT            | is not set  |maintainer| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1080275?v=4" width="50">[arndb](https://github.com/arndb) commented at [2020-04-04 09:48](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-609004574):

The hyperv framebuffer driver came up on the mailing list recently when I noticed a patch to add support for arm64 and suggested having it converted to DRM. Other hardware-independent drivers that don't seem to have a DRM counterpart at the moment are the UEFI framebuffer that is often used in the absence of a hardware specific driver and the goldfish driver for Android device emulation.

It might help to also look at each distro to see which device drivers are enabled for DRM_LEGACY and FBDEV, as there may be others that are important and need to be converted.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5088003?v=4" width="50">[danvet](https://github.com/danvet) commented at [2020-04-04 11:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/38#issuecomment-609012871):

@dvyukov the trouble is you'll break pretty much any general purpose distro with this stuff disabled. Iirc most compositors keel over if they can't open a vt (but they should all have options to survive without one). Plus since neither kmscon nor system-consoled ever happened for real no kernel console without these, so all the whitebeards will be screaming with their pitchforks. Really not something you can do in a defconfig unfortunately.

@arndb yeah there was simpledrm also back around kmscon to make this happen, but it didn't. For everything else we seem to have a small community of people now pushing out drm drivers for all these things, but more is always welcome. A drm driver in less that 1kloc is fairly standard nowadays, trouble only happens if you have a strange new constraint.

Wrt DRM_LEGACY and FBDEV drivers in general, I get the impression that distros which enable them just enable everything, because. E.g. debian still enables DRM_LEGACY, but they long ago stopped shipping the corresponding userspace drivers. So just plain nonsense in their defconfig (and a CVE when you load drm/nouveau.ko because backwards compat)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#37 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/37) `closed`: conflict with the latest grsecurity

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50359848?v=4" width="50">[pythonmandev](https://github.com/pythonmandev) opened issue at [2020-03-30 14:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/37):

CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL conflict with PAX_REFCOUNT
PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION conflict with PAX_MEMORY_UDEREF
VMAP_STACK conflict with GRKERNSEC_KSTACKOVERFLOW
SECURITY_YAMA conflict with GRKERNSEC
RANDOMIZE_BASE also can not enable.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-31 11:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/37#issuecomment-606569944):

Hello @pythonmandev!
What do you mean saying "latest grsecurity"?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2020-03-31 11:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/37#issuecomment-606574067):

its not an openly available patchset anymore hence i suggest to not take it into account. I would think differently if it would be open source, but sadly its not.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#36 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/36) `closed`: null

#### <img src="(unknown)" width="50">[(unknown)]((unknown)) opened issue at [2020-03-30 14:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/36):

null




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#35 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35) `closed`: can't add version check for constraints in a logical product

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/785111?u=8feaa758657096dbcadcd190fbea88e371aab7be&v=4" width="50">[tych0](https://github.com/tych0) opened issue at [2020-03-26 17:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35):

If I try to do:

```
diff --git a/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py b/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py
index 3fcb5e0..1c31c40 100755
--- a/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py
+++ b/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py
@@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ def construct_checklist(checklist, arch):
         checklist.append(OptCheck('MICROCODE',                   'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection')) # is needed for mitigating CPU bugs
         checklist.append(OptCheck('RETPOLINE',                   'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection'))
         checklist.append(OptCheck('X86_SMAP',                    'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection'))
-        checklist.append(OR(OptCheck('X86_UMIP',                 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection'), \
-                            OptCheck('X86_INTEL_UMIP',           'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection')))
+        checklist.append(OR(AND(OptCheck('X86_UMIP',                 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection'), VerCheck((5, 5))), \
+                            AND(OptCheck('X86_INTEL_UMIP',           'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection'), VerCheck((4, 14)))))
         checklist.append(OptCheck('SYN_COOKIES',                 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection')) # another reason?
     if arch == 'X86_64':
         checklist.append(OptCheck('PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION',        'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection'))
```

I get:

```
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/tycho/.local/bin/kconfig-hardened-check", line 10, in <module>
    sys.exit(main())
  File "/home/tycho/.local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py", line 611, in main
    check_config_file(config_checklist, args.config, arch)
  File "/home/tycho/.local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py", line 554, in check_config_file
    perform_checks(checklist, parsed_options)
  File "/home/tycho/.local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py", line 519, in perform_checks
    o.state = parsed_options.get(o.name, None)
AttributeError: can't set attribute
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-28 20:54](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35#issuecomment-605518372):

Hello @tych0!
I'm glad that you had a look at this project!
How are you doing? :)

Yes, currently the combination of `ComplexOptCheck` objects is not supported (there have been no cases that needed it).

The original logic behind `X86_UMIP` check:
 - if `X86_UMIP` or `X86_INTEL_UMIP` is set to `y`, then `OK`;
 - otherwise `FAIL`.

What is the purpose of combining `UMIP` check with version check?

I designed `VerCheck` for cases like that:
 - if `REFCOUNT_FULL` is set to `y`, then `OK`;
 - if kernel version >= `5.5`, then `OK` (since `REFCOUNT_FULL` is enabled by default and dropped since v5.5);
 - otherwise `FAIL`.

N.B. There is an implicit drawback with checking kernel versions.
Some kernel features are backported to previous stable kernels.
That's why checking the version can give false positive or false negative result.
Detailed example: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/32

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/785111?u=8feaa758657096dbcadcd190fbea88e371aab7be&v=4" width="50">[tych0](https://github.com/tych0) commented at [2020-03-29 14:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35#issuecomment-605648635):

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 01:55:08PM -0700, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Hello @tych0!
> I'm glad that you had a look at this project!
> How are you doing? :)

Good, just hacking away :)

> Yes, currently the combination of `ComplexOptCheck` objects is not supported (there have been no cases that needed it).
> 
> The original logic behind `X86_UMIP` check:
>  - if `X86_UMIP` or `X86_INTEL_UMIP` is set to `y`, then `OK`;
>  - otherwise `FAIL`.
> 
> What is the purpose of combining `UMIP` check with version check?

It's only present in 4.15 or greater; I'm running a 4.14 kernel and
kconfig-hardened-check is complaining at me :)

> I designed `VerCheck` for cases like that:
>  - if `REFCOUNT_FULL` is set to `y`, then `OK`;
>  - if kernel version >= `5.5`, then `OK` (since `REFCOUNT_FULL` is enabled by default and dropped since v5.5);
>  - otherwise `FAIL`.
> 
> N.B. There is an implicit drawback with checking kernel versions.
> Some kernel features are backported to previous stable kernels.
> That's why checking the version can give false positive or false negative result.
> Detailed example: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/32

"Not present" is also risky though, if people don't have some of the
dependencies of a feature enabled. A version whitelist seems the best.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-30 21:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35#issuecomment-606252748):

>> What is the purpose of combining `UMIP` check with version check?

> It's only present in 4.15 or greater; I'm running a 4.14 kernel and kconfig-hardened-check is complaining at me :)

Yes, that's good. The tool inspires you to switch onto a newer kernel :)

> "Not present" is also risky though, if people don't have some of the
dependencies of a feature enabled. 

You know, I haven't seen any example of such unmet dependencies. I suppose that kernel feature dependencies are resolved by Kconfig.

> A version whitelist seems the best.

I would like to avoid version checking as much as possible.
Relying on kernel version brings so many troubles!
For example:
 - sometimes new features are backported to previous stable kernels,
 - sometimes Linux distributions cherry-pick features into their kernels,
 - some Linux distributions have custom kernel versioning scheme -- look at Ubuntu or Red Hat.

Finally, the most important aspect.
I like that kernels of different versions are checked against the same list of recommendations.
Hence they can be compared using `OK/FAIL` numbers that are printed by the tool in the end:
```
[+] config check is finished: 'OK' - 55 / 'FAIL' - 77
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-04-10 16:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35#issuecomment-612117051):

@tych0 your issue reminded me the idea to create some formatted annotations, that can be used for muting checks for a particular kernel. That was discussed in #9.
Thank you.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/785111?u=8feaa758657096dbcadcd190fbea88e371aab7be&v=4" width="50">[tych0](https://github.com/tych0) commented at [2020-04-10 16:55](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35#issuecomment-612119721):

Sorry, I read this and forgot to respond :)

> Yes, that's good. The tool inspires you to switch onto a newer kernel :)

Yes, but switching is not so easy sometimes, because of institutional challenges. If we want to add this to our CI to check our kernel configs or something, it would be nice to exclude stuff that doesn't exist in our kernel. I can do this manually, but it would be nicer to have this knowledge baked into the script.

> You know, I haven't seen any example of such unmet dependencies. I suppose that kernel feature dependencies are resolved by Kconfig.

Consider GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK; we'll report "Not present" if the user hasn't set CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS=n, but it really should be an error.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/785111?u=8feaa758657096dbcadcd190fbea88e371aab7be&v=4" width="50">[tych0](https://github.com/tych0) commented at [2020-04-10 16:56](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/35#issuecomment-612119803):

Anwyay, I'll check out the updates, thanks :)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#34 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/34) `merged`: GrapheneOS is the continuation of CopperheadOS

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) opened issue at [2020-03-22 19:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/34):

"CopperheadOS" is the project's legacy name which is now being used for a scam focused on attacking GrapheneOS, the true continuation.

https://twitter.com/DanielMicay/status/1171170734380654597

https://twitter.com/DanielMicay/status/1160831422908829696

https://old.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/comments/8qdnn3/goodbye/

https://github.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#33 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/33) `closed`: CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/543852?v=4" width="50">[anthonyryan1](https://github.com/anthonyryan1) opened issue at [2020-03-20 22:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/33):

I read over the CLIP OS notes regarding this option, and they also mention that they are not currently using it in the second paragraph.

It seems to be that this option isn't actually helpful unless you've already got a usermode helper program?

Just questioning the wisdom of this option as I imagine some people will just enable everything they see here, and may wind up with this pointing at a non-existent binary.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-03-21 10:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/33#issuecomment-602026415):

Yes, this option needs userspace support and yes, blindly enabling everything may cause harm.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-23 15:22](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/33#issuecomment-602670488):

@Bernhard40, absolutely agree.
N.B. There is a comment about `STATIC_USERMODEHELPER` in the source code:
```
checklist.append(OptCheck('STATIC_USERMODEHELPER', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection')) # needs userspace support (systemd)
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#32 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/32) `closed`: Fix LDISC_AUTOLOAD check

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) opened issue at [2020-03-09 18:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/32):

CONFIG_LDISC_AUTOLOAD has existed since v4.14, not v5.1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/15/890

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-14 09:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/32#issuecomment-599034709):

Hello @madaidan,

Thanks for noticing that!

CONFIG_LDISC_AUTOLOAD was introduced in 5.1:
changelog https://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_5.1
upstream commit https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7c0cca7c847e6e019d67b7d793efbbe3b947d004

I checked, it was later backported to stable kernels 4.14, 4.9 and 4.4.
So we can't have a correct check based on a kernel version.
For example this option exists in kernel 4.4.216, but doesn't exist in 4.5.

I think the correct approach here is to add another type of check that can distinguish "is not set" and "not found".

What do you think?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-03-14 20:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/32#issuecomment-599131303):

How about a whitelist of allowed versions? So it checks for 4.4, 4.9, 4.14 or ≥5.1 but not 4.5.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-31 11:46](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/32#issuecomment-606577240):

Hm, I got an idea.
I'll try to create a new check that the option __exists__ in the config.
So for `LDISC_AUTOLOAD` we can create a rule `(exists) AND (is not set)`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-31 14:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/32#issuecomment-606654029):

Done!
Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#31 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/31) `merged`: Update config files

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2020-02-24 20:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/31):

Hi @a13xp0p0v, 

Here are the updates of the distributions configuration files. I also had to update some links.
Please note that we now have the majority of configurations with versions >= to linux 5.3 🧙‍♂️

See you soon.

Best regards,

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-02-27 17:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/31#issuecomment-592084682):

Thanks, @HacKurx!

N.B. I'm going to work on support of new kernel releases in the near future.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2020-03-04 19:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/31#issuecomment-594761475):

@a13xp0p0v, 
> N.B. I'm going to work on support of new kernel releases in the near future.

https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings&diff=4001&oldid=prev

:wink:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-04 19:55](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/31#issuecomment-594797254):

Yes, thanks, I'm already working on that!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#30 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30) `closed`: Has CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL and VMAP_STACK been removed from Kernel-5.5 ?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) opened issue at [2020-02-01 12:24](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30):

Hey everyone,

Im trying to configure Kernel-5.5 config and i don't see CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL option and the same with VMAP_STACK.
I use Kernel-5.3 for now and there is an option available. Soo should i think that this option is no longer available ?

Thanks !

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-02-02 13:05](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-581133592):

`CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL` was removed but `CONFIG_VMAP_STACK` is still available.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-02-05 16:54](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-582504214):

Yes, `REFCOUNT_FULL` was removed...
Have to find a way how to check it without false positive.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-02-06 12:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-582884278):

@a13xp0p0v there is kernel version printed in config header, like:

```
#
# Automatically generated file; DO NOT EDIT.
# Linux/x86 5.5.2 Kernel Configuration
#
```

maybe you can parse those?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-02-06 15:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-582957059):

Yes, it looks like we have to add some limited kernel version checking...

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-02-06 15:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-582959470):

I may have time to work on that only after OffensiveCon.
Does anybody want to prepare a pull request?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) commented at [2020-02-09 13:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-583842999):

Hey,

Is a CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_VMAP_STACK in Kernel-5.5.2 equivalent to
CONFIG_VMAPSTACK ?

Thanks !

czw., 6 lut 2020 o 16:29 Alexander Popov <notifications@github.com>
napisał(a):

> I may have time to work on that only after OffensiveCon.
> Does anybody want to prepare a pull request?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/issues/30?email_source=notifications&email_token=AA2PTHCFMA26NITNFRMNTU3RBQUHBA5CNFSM4KOS3L22YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEK7UC3Q#issuecomment-582959470>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2PTHBA772R35Y6MYOQS6DRBQUHBANCNFSM4KOS3L2Q>
> .
>

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2020-02-10 14:32](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-584150411):

> Is a CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_VMAP_STACK in Kernel-5.5.2 equivalent to
> CONFIG_VMAPSTACK ?

No `CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_VMAP_STACK` tells only if `VMAP_STACK` is available for specific cpu architecture. `CONFIG_VMAP_STACK` tells if `VMAP_STACK` is enabled.

You can check that [VMAP_STACK definitely still exist up to 5.6-rc](https://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/VMAP_STACK.html).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-05 11:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/30#issuecomment-595170199):

Hello!

Worked with that issue in 0ace19012b626203d14332090cdcd40ed2237100, 918b12cf6f652ad148c885d1a802459e73d20c48 and 17c22224ac5b20c3d0ed49e7859642756e178bd9.

Also have a look at 61b5ca3c8f95212141284be8eb4036c8c1bda9e7: that fixes the false positive report about LDISC_AUTOLOAD for old kernels.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#29 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29) `closed`: Recommend PANIC_ON_OOPS

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) opened issue at [2020-01-13 21:28](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29):

This causes the kernel to panic on an oops.

Recommended by the KSPP and CLIP OS.

https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings

> \# Reboot devices immediately if kernel experiences an Oops.
> CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS=y
> CONFIG_PANIC_TIMEOUT=-1

https://docs.clip-os.org/clipos/kernel.html

> CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS=y
> CONFIG_PANIC_TIMEOUT=-1
>
>    Prevent potential further exploitation of a bug by immediately panicking the kernel.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-14 09:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29#issuecomment-574081092):

Hello @madaidan,

Yes, I saw this KSPP recommendation.
I personally don't support it because it provides easy denial-of-service attack for the whole system (there are a lot of BUG()'s in the kernel).

In my opinion having CONFIG_BUG is enough. If we have kernel oops in the process context, the offending/attacking process is killed.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-01-14 16:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29#issuecomment-574269683):

I think the kernel exploits this can prevent are more important than DoS.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-16 10:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29#issuecomment-575078024):

> I think the kernel exploits this can prevent are more important than DoS.

Could you please give a real example of the exploit that:
  1. is NOT blocked by having `CONFIG_BUG=y`,
and
  2. is blocked by having `CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS=y`.

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-01-16 17:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29#issuecomment-575259978):

This is a good example since it explicitly mentions panic_on_oops: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-cache-invalidation-bug-in-linux.html

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-17 15:10](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29#issuecomment-575664888):

> This is a good example since it explicitly mentions panic_on_oops: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-cache-invalidation-bug-in-linux.html

No, sorry, that's a wrong example.

In that exploit Jann Horn used the output of `WARN_ON_ONCE()`.
Having `CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS=y` doesn't prevent his method, since kernel continues to run after `WARN_ON_ONCE()` anyway.

Moreover, let me quote Jann about CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS:
```
It is off by default in the upstream kernel - and enabling it by default in distributions
would probably be a bad idea -, but it is e.g. enabled by Android.
```

If some users want to enable it anyway, they can always use `kernel.panic_on_oops` sysctl or the corresponding kernel command line parameter.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-01-20 17:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/29#issuecomment-576372137):

Alright. Fair enough.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#28 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/28) `closed`: Don't give errors about CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING when using an alternative

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) opened issue at [2020-01-09 19:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/28):

Some people use `CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON`/`CONFIG_INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON` or linux-hardened's `CONFIG_PAGE_SANITIZE` (for LTS kernels) instead of `CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING`. People using these alternatives will get pointless errors that may confuse them.

It would be better if the errors were only shown when not using these.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2020-01-09 19:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/28#issuecomment-572720806):

I would love this :P

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-10 15:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/28#issuecomment-573079631):

As I remember, all these features are different in some sense.
Are you sure that they are alternative to each other?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-01-10 16:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/28#issuecomment-573110783):

As far as I know, they all have the same goal which is to overwrite memory to prevent use-after-free but they have some slight differences as `PAGE_POISONING` forces debugging bloat (as it is actually a debugging feature) which makes `init_on_{,free,alloc}` or `PAGE_SANITIZE` (which was dropped in newer linux-hardened versions for `init_on_{,free,alloc}`) better.

`init_on_{,free,alloc}` actually disables itself when `PAGE_POISONING` is being used to prevent conflict.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/6471384af2a6530696fc0203bafe4de41a23c9ef

> If either SLUB poisoning or page poisoning is enabled, those options take
precedence over init_on_alloc and init_on_free: initialization is only
applied to unpoisoned allocations.

Also notice that linux-hardened and ClipOS do not enable `PAGE_POISONING` but use the others instead.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-14 10:28](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/28#issuecomment-574108331):

@madaidan, thanks for the details.
So yes, `PAGE_POISONING` is a debugging feature.
It provides less erasing than `INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON`.

I joined these checks with OR giving preference to `INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON`.
Please see the linked commit.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-01-14 16:55](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/28#issuecomment-574271418):

Great, thanks.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#27 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27) `closed`: add nix build files

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) opened issue at [2020-01-02 09:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-01-02 10:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-570172617):

These are all possible kernel configurations:
There might be duplicate since linux-latest is basically linux-5.4.
I am not sure which configuration you want to include in this repository.
Maybe _hardened, _latest and the default kernel.

[nixpkgs-linux_latest-libre-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015570/nixpkgs-linux_latest-libre-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_latest_hardened-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015571/nixpkgs-linux_latest_hardened-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_testing_hardened-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015572/nixpkgs-linux_testing_hardened-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_hardened-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015573/nixpkgs-linux_hardened-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_latest-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015574/nixpkgs-linux_latest-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_testing_bcachefs-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015575/nixpkgs-linux_testing_bcachefs-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_testing-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015576/nixpkgs-linux_testing-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_5_4-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015577/nixpkgs-linux_5_4-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_5_3-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015578/nixpkgs-linux_5_3-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_4_9-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015579/nixpkgs-linux_4_9-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_4_14-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015580/nixpkgs-linux_4_14-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_4_4-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015581/nixpkgs-linux_4_4-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_4_19-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015582/nixpkgs-linux_4_19-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_mptcp_94-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015583/nixpkgs-linux_mptcp_94-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_mptcp_95-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015584/nixpkgs-linux_mptcp_95-config.txt)
[nixpkgs-linux_mptcp-config.txt](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/files/4015585/nixpkgs-linux_mptcp-config.txt)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-01-02 10:47](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-570173237):

This is the output for our hardened kernel:
cc @joachifm (hardened maintainer)

```
[+] Trying to detect architecture in "kconfig/nixpkgs-linux_hardened-config.txt"...
[+] Detected architecture: X86_64
[+] Checking "kconfig/nixpkgs-linux_hardened-config.txt" against hardening preferences...
                 option name                 | desired val | decision |       reason       |   check result
=========================================================================================================================
CONFIG_BUG                                   |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX                     |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG                 |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG                            |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX                     |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_MICROCODE                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_RETPOLINE                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_X86_SMAP                              |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_X86_UMIP                              |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK: CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP "y"
CONFIG_IOMMU_SUPPORT                         |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES                           |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION                  |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY                      |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU                           |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_VMAP_STACK                            |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE                        |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK                   |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_WX                              |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK                 |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_SHUFFLE_PAGE_ALLOCATOR                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS                           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT                 |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY             |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST                            |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_SG                              |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_CREDENTIALS                     |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS                       |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY                     |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_FALLBACK            | is not set  |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG                            |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA512                     |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE                      |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR                 |    65536    |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL                         |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL                        |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   OK: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL "y"
CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON              |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON               |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT               |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL                         |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER                 |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_SLAB_MERGE_DEFAULT                    | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE     | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK                  |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS                     | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK is needed
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_RUNTIME_DISABLE             | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK is needed
CONFIG_RANDOM_TRUST_CPU                      | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   OK
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM                       |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_DEFAULT_ON                |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON                         |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION               |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY              | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO                   | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2                          |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   |   FAIL: "m"
CONFIG_SECURITY                              |      y      |defconfig |  security_policy   |   OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA                         |      y      |   kspp   |  security_policy   |   OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN                      |      y      |    my    |  security_policy   |   FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM                 |      y      |    my    |  security_policy   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM_EARLY           |      y      |    my    |  security_policy   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL_FORCE_CONFIDENTIALITY|      y      |    my    |  security_policy   |   FAIL: not found
CONFIG_SECCOMP                               |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER                        |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM                         |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_MODULES                               | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_DEVMEM                                | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM                      |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_METHOD                    | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK                            | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_DEVKMEM                               | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_INET_DIAG                             | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_KEXEC                                 | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PROC_KCORE                            | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_HIBERNATION                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_LEGACY_VSYSCALL_NONE                  |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION                        | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_X86_X32                               | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_MODIFY_LDT_SYSCALL                    | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_X86_PTDUMP                            | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "m"
CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER                            | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK                        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT                           | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_KPROBES                               | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_UPROBES                               | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_GENERIC_TRACER                        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE                           | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR                     | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_USELIB                                | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE                    | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_USERFAULTFD                           | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT                       | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY                        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_DEVPORT                               | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS                              | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_NOTIFIER_ERROR_INJECTION              | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE                    | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_EINJ                        | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_PROFILING                             | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL                           | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MMIOTRACE_TEST                        | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_KSM                                   | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_KALLSYMS                              | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_X86_VSYSCALL_EMULATION                | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ                           | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE                            | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_USER_NS                               | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_LDISC_AUTOLOAD                        | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MMIOTRACE                             | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface |   OK
CONFIG_LIVEPATCH                             | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface |   OK: not found
CONFIG_IP_DCCP                               | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "m"
CONFIG_IP_SCTP                               | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "m"
CONFIG_FTRACE                                | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_BPF_JIT                               | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface |   FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS                    |     32      |  clipos  |userspace_hardening |   FAIL: "28"

[+] config check is finished: 'OK' - 66 / 'FAIL' - 57
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-01-02 10:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-570174082):

cc @fpletz @andir @flokli @nequissimus regarding security/kernel maintenance.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/628342?u=948c2401c073b8097e8ec160019140fb6043f266&v=4" width="50">[NeQuissimus](https://github.com/NeQuissimus) commented at [2020-01-02 16:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-570253840):

There is no (official) open source grsecurity for recent kernels. But for the other options, I'd be interested in a discussion in the nixpkgs repo.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-02 23:11](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-570392431):

Hello @Mic92,

> I am not sure which configuration you want to include in this repository.
> Maybe _hardened, _latest and the default kernel.

I would like to have only the default and hardened config for NixOS.
That's useful for a brief comparison of kernel hardening adoption by various Linux distributions.
By the way, we don't have a goal to collect all the latest configs from all the distributions.
@HacKurx updates them from time to time.

Hello @NeQuissimus,

> There is no (official) open source grsecurity for recent kernels. 

Yes.
And do you mean that there is an unofficial grsecurity patch for recent kernels available in public?

> But for the other options, I'd be interested in a discussion in the nixpkgs repo.

I would be glad to join that discussion.
I've accumulated some knowledge about the vanilla kernel hardening.
Please see my Linux Kernel Defence Map https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/linux-kernel-defence-map.
It shows the the relationships between:
 - Vulnerability classes,
 - Exploitation techniques,
 - Bug detection mechanisms,
 - Defense technologies.

It could be useful for making a decision about enabling kernel hardening config options.

@Mic92 @fpletz @andir @flokli @NeQuissimus,
Does NixOS have a documentation describing the difference between its hardened and default kernels?

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/628342?u=948c2401c073b8097e8ec160019140fb6043f266&v=4" width="50">[NeQuissimus](https://github.com/NeQuissimus) commented at [2020-01-03 00:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-570414239):

I was thinking of minipli but I guess those are only for 4.9.

I opened NixOS/nixpkgs#76850, which links to the kernel flags we set for the standard kernel builds and for the hardened one.
Unfortunately I do not think there is good documentation.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-01-03 08:37](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-570503332):

> Hello @Mic92,
> 
> > I am not sure which configuration you want to include in this repository.
> > Maybe _hardened, _latest and the default kernel.
> 
> I would like to have only the default and hardened config for NixOS.
> That's useful for a brief comparison of kernel hardening adoption by various Linux distributions.
> By the way, we don't have a goal to collect all the latest configs from all the distributions.
> @HacKurx updates them from time to time.

Fair enough I think the other changes that are actually part of this pull request should be still useful though.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-10 14:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-573050822):

> Fair enough I think the other changes that are actually part of this pull request should be still useful though.

Hi @Mic92,
Could you have a look at my comments for your PR https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/26 ?
I need some clarifications to be able to integrate your work.
Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2020-02-24 20:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-590544879):

Hi,

I haven't tested NixOS yet, is there a quick and easy way to retrieve the kernel configuration or it's only dynamically generated?
I only find this but without config files:
https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-19.09/nixpkgs.linuxPackages_latest_hardened.kernel.x86_64-linux

Beside the point, I'm not a fan of that :
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/1b9bf8fa7559d1bbf030f3fe3513d25eada65a41

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-02-25 09:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-590768293):

@HacKurx It's generated by nix code. Can you explain why a RANDSTRUCT read from /dev/random is better than a checksum over the linux kernel tarball? From my understanding, once that a package is build, one could extract the seed from the build. In that way reproducible builds would give us other properties i.e. verifying a correct build.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/41977?u=ba54c9de3752a1aa05a462e38bd6e84bdc26a2bb&v=4" width="50">[joachifm](https://github.com/joachifm) commented at [2020-02-25 17:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-590976475):

@Mic92 I agree with you. I think it's fair to say that any compile-time randomization is rendered (nearly) pointless by publishing the image.  In our case, the value is likely to change whenever source/config changes, so might be considered "better" than a static seed value (whether it makes any real difference is another matter).  I think users who really care about this type of mitigation should build their own kernel with a custom seed (support for this was added in a later patch, iirc).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2020-02-25 21:10](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-591070826):

@Mic92, @joachifm,
The person who recompile a kernel from your source should have another seed (not your) for more security.
It seems preferable to me of change the SEED variable every time you update the nix kernel. Use a compilation based of a date or the kernel number for example.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/41977?u=ba54c9de3752a1aa05a462e38bd6e84bdc26a2bb&v=4" width="50">[joachifm](https://github.com/joachifm) commented at [2020-02-25 22:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-591100811):

@HacKurx note that `${src}` in the snippet you linked above expands to a string that contains both the checksum of the linux source tarball and the version number: it is certain to change in case of version bumps.  

I wouldn't mind including more information in the seed construction to further increase the likelihood that it will differ between builds, but whatever is added needs to preserve determinism (in the sense that same inputs give same output).  

Reproducibility is a key goal for Nix/NixPkgs and usually overrides other concerns.  In this case, I think giving users of the prebuilt image a weak(ened) variant of the mitigation while making it easy to supply a custom seed is a more than fair tradeoff, especially given that the full benefit of this type of mitigation can only be realized with a self-built package anyway.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-27 19:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-605284899):

Hello @Mic92!
I installed Nix on a Debian machine to test your scripts.
Unfortunately I have to revert the commit that adds `contrib/get-nix-kconfig.py`.
This script is corrupted (has unexpected symbols).
It also has numerous troubles with Python 3.5.3.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-03-27 19:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-605287211):

@a13xp0p0v just add:

```
#! /usr/bin/env nix-shell
#! nix-shell -i python3
```

as a shebang. Nixpkgs has python3.6 and the script depends nix anyway.
It is not corrupted but depends on python3.6 or newer.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-27 20:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-605300321):

Thanks for prompt reply!
1. I perform:
```
$ nix-shell
```
2. Then I change the shebang as you described and run the script:
```
[nix-shell:~/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib]$ ./get-nix-kconfig.py 
error: getting status of '/home/x/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib/default.nix': No such file or directory
```
3. Finally this makes it work:
```
[nix-shell:~/kconfig-hardened-check/contrib]$ python3 get-nix-kconfig.py 
```
I got kernel configs and added hardened one to the collection: 4768e21b33fa9663114eb30c2b2c2cf9e6cf4721

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-03-28 03:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/27#issuecomment-605387095):

My mistake it should have been:

```
#! /usr/bin/env nix-shell
#! nix-shell -i python3 -p python3
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#26 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/26) `closed`: enable distribution via pip/setuptools

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) opened issue at [2020-01-02 09:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/26):



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/96200?u=9ed15c85825694d00e996d605d728179b830c4fa&v=4" width="50">[Mic92](https://github.com/Mic92) commented at [2020-02-25 09:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/26#issuecomment-590771724):

> Hi Jörg,
> Thanks a lot for your work.
> I'm not familiar with setuptools, but it looks to me that integrating that is a good idea.
> There are a few aspects that I would like to fix before merging.
> 
>     1. Can we avoid creating the `kconfig_hardened_check` directory? I would rather have `bin` and `config_files`.
> 

No one needs a distinct module to put the python code in to avoid conflicts with other installed python packages.

>     2. What is the purpose of splitting the code onto `bin/kconfig_hardened_check` and `kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py`? Is it some special python feng-shui? (I'm asking because I'm just a kernel developer)
> 

`bin/kconfig_hardened_check` is for people just checking out the repository and running the script without installing it. If you install it with `setuptools`,
it will generate its own wrapper that will eventually load `kconfig_hardened_check/__init__.py`.

>     3. I would like to split setuptools integration and the code refactoring onto separate commits. Moreover, I don't understand the `List[Any]` changes.

`List[Any]` is a type annotation. When you use a typechecker like mypy you can typecheck your code that way.

> 
>     4. Are you sure that the classifiers in `setup.cfg` are correct? It looks like some of them don't fit this project.


> 
>     5. The `package_data` in `setup.cfg` misses some files in the repository. Is it ok?

It should only contain files that are supposed to be installed. I am not even sure having those config files provides any benefit for a user of the tool.
Let me know and I would not include them at all.

> 
> 
> Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-03-26 13:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/26#issuecomment-604427052):

Hello @Mic92,
I carefully reimplemented your proof-of-concept in a set of separate commits.
Fixed mistakes in setup.cfg, added MANIFEST.in, fixed issues with global variables.
Thank you very much, I learned a lot!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#25 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25) `closed`: Hardened Kernel Config File for Virtual Machines (VMs) ("cloud kernel")

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1985040?u=b84e7065f9f8d62fbff9ac468a0cf0757718ed77&v=4" width="50">[adrelanos](https://github.com/adrelanos) opened issue at [2019-12-28 20:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25):

A kernel config specialized for better security inside virtual machines is in development.

The development preview version can be found here:
https://github.com/Whonix/hardened-kernel/blob/master/usr/share/hardened-kernel/hardened-vm-kernel

This work is being done by @madaidan who also contributed pull requests to [linux-hardened](https://github.com/anthraxx/linux-hardened).

https://github.com/anthraxx/linux-hardened/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=author%3Amadaidan

Discussions about the kernel config happen mostly in Whonix forums.

https://forums.whonix.org/t/kernel-recompilation-for-better-hardening/7598/214

The hardened kernel config was contributed by @madaidan to the @Whonix project but as the maintainer of Whonix I think that it is not the most suitable project to maintain a kernel config. It would be more impactful and would get more eyes on it if it was hosted here.

Therefore I am wondering if there is any chance you would accept a pull request for a hardened (VM) config file? Which folder would be suitable for such a config file?

@madaidan is also working on a hardened bare metal (i.e. non-VM) kernel config:
https://github.com/Whonix/hardened-kernel/blob/master/usr/share/hardened-kernel/hardened-host-kernel

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-02 23:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25#issuecomment-570397241):

Hello @adrelanos,
I guess Whonix has a default and hardened config, am I right?
Is the difference between them documented anywhere?
We can take Whonix official configs to the `config_files/distros/`.
That's useful for a brief comparison of kernel hardening adoption by various Linux distributions.
There is also the `config_files/links.txt` file that describes how to get official configs from various distros.
Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-01-05 17:22](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25#issuecomment-570930694):

The current Whonix default is the Debian default. It will be changed to the config mentioned in the post once it's finished.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2020-01-10 15:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25#issuecomment-573077384):

Ok.
So when it is finished, you are welcome to send me the pull request that
 - adds the official Whonix hardened config to `config_files/distros/`;
 - adds the corresponding info to `config_files/links.txt`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/42802201?v=4" width="50">[tsautereau-anssi](https://github.com/tsautereau-anssi) commented at [2020-01-13 15:59](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25#issuecomment-573735007):

@madaidan After reading your [post](https://github.com/anthraxx/linux-hardened/issues/21) on the linux-hardened repository, it seems you might be interested in contributing some of your changes to the [CLIP OS kernel](https://github.com/clipos/src_external_linux/) (see our current configuration [here](https://github.com/clipos/src_platform_config-linux-hardware/tree/master/kernel_config)). If so, don't hesitate to [open an issue](https://github.com/clipos/bugs), it would be much appreciated!

Thanks @msalaun-anssi for the heads-up ;)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1985040?u=b84e7065f9f8d62fbff9ac468a0cf0757718ed77&v=4" width="50">[adrelanos](https://github.com/adrelanos) commented at [2020-01-13 16:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25#issuecomment-573747860):

Created https://github.com/clipos/bugs/issues/38 for it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/50278627?v=4" width="50">[madaidan](https://github.com/madaidan) commented at [2020-01-13 18:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/25#issuecomment-573797636):

> @madaidan After reading your post on the linux-hardened repository, it seems you might be interested in contributing some of your changes to the CLIP OS kernel (see our current configuration here). If so, don't hesitate to open an issue, it would be much appreciated!

Sounds great. I'll see what I can do.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#24 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24) `closed`: Create debian-buster.config

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/89727?v=4" width="50">[alexandernst](https://github.com/alexandernst) opened issue at [2019-08-27 23:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24):

```
[+] Trying to detect architecture in "../linux-source-4.19/.config"...
[+] Detected architecture: X86_64
[+] Checking "../linux-source-4.19/.config" against hardening preferences...
              option name               | desired val | decision |       reason       ||        check result
====================================================================================================================
CONFIG_BUG                              |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX                |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG            |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG                       |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX                |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY                 |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE                   |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_RETPOLINE                        |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_X86_SMAP                         |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP                   |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES                      |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_VMAP_STACK                       |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK              |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_WX                         |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK            |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM             |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SHUFFLE_PAGE_ALLOCATOR           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE                   |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS                      |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT            |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST                       |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_SG                         |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_DEBUG_CREDENTIALS                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING                   |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_FALLBACK       | is not set  |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG                       |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL                   |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA512                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE                 |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR            |    65536    |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL                    |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL                 |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT          |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL                    |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER            |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_SLAB_MERGE_DEFAULT               | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE| is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT is needed
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK             |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS                | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK is needed
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_RUNTIME_DISABLE        | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK is needed
CONFIG_RANDOM_TRUST_CPU                 | is not set  |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MICROCODE                        |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_IOMMU_SUPPORT                    |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU                      |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM                  |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_DEFAULT_ON           |      y      |  clipos  |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL                   |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON                    |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN                 |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION          |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY         | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO              | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU                        |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2                     |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_SECURITY                         |      y      |defconfig |  security_policy   ||             OK
CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA                    |      y      |   kspp   |  security_policy   ||             OK
CONFIG_SECCOMP                          |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER                   |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM                    |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_MODULES                          | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_DEVMEM                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM                 |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_METHOD               | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK                       | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_DEVKMEM                          | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO                      | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC                      | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_INET_DIAG                        | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_KEXEC                            | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PROC_KCORE                       | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS                      | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_HIBERNATION                      | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_LEGACY_VSYSCALL_NONE             |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION                   | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_X86_X32                          | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MODIFY_LDT_SYSCALL               | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_X86_PTDUMP                       | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT                    | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found
CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER                       | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK                   | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT                      | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found
CONFIG_KPROBES                          | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_UPROBES                          | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_GENERIC_TRACER                   | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE                      | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR                | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_USELIB                           | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE               | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_USERFAULTFD                      | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT                  | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY                   | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_DEVPORT                          | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_NOTIFIER_ERROR_INJECTION         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE               | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_EINJ                   | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_PROFILING                        | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL                      | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MMIOTRACE_TEST                   | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_KSM                              | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_IKCONFIG                         | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"
CONFIG_KALLSYMS                         | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_X86_VSYSCALL_EMULATION           | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ                      | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE                       | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_USER_NS                          | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_LDISC_AUTOLOAD                   | is not set  |  clipos  | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_MMIOTRACE                        | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_LIVEPATCH                        | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_IP_DCCP                          | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_IP_SCTP                          | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||             OK
CONFIG_FTRACE                           | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_BPF_JIT                          | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS               |     32      |  clipos  |userspace_protection||         FAIL: "28"

[+] config check is finished: 'OK' - 60 / 'FAIL' - 60
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-08-30 12:40](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24#issuecomment-526586258):

Hello @alexandernst,

Thanks for your PR.

I decided to compare the your config with one available here:
https://packages.debian.org/buster/linux-image-4.19.0-5-amd64

They differ a lot.
Where did you get your config?

Best regards,
Alexander

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/89727?v=4" width="50">[alexandernst](https://github.com/alexandernst) commented at [2019-08-30 12:56](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24#issuecomment-526591340):

The config file was generated using the instructions in https://kernel-team.pages.debian.net/kernel-handbook/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-building

```
apt install -y linux-source fakeroot libelf-dev libssl-dev
tar xaf /usr/src/linux-source-4.19.tar.xz
cd linux-source-4.19/
yes "" | make localmodconfig
scripts/config --disable MODULE_SIG
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/89727?v=4" width="50">[alexandernst](https://github.com/alexandernst) commented at [2019-08-30 12:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24#issuecomment-526591989):

Oh, this was built using an AWS EC2 instance, so that might be causing the differences between a vainilla debian config and my config.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-08-30 13:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24#issuecomment-526595179):

Right, let me quote the kernel documentation:
```
"make localmodconfig" Create a config based on current config and loaded modules (lsmod).
```
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/README.html?highlight=localmodconfig

Would you like to fix your PR?
If so I would also ask to add info to `config_files/links.txt`.

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/89727?v=4" width="50">[alexandernst](https://github.com/alexandernst) commented at [2019-08-30 13:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24#issuecomment-526605210):

I'm not really sure if by "fix" you mean rename the file to something like `debian-buster-aws.config` or by replace the config with the one from https://packages.debian.org/buster/linux-image-4.19.0-5-amd64 ?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-08-30 13:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24#issuecomment-526607017):

I think adding an original Debian config would be more useful for everyone.
Also it would be nice if you find a direct link to this config and add it to `links.txt`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-11-28 07:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/24#issuecomment-559376496):

Closing the PR (I've finally did it myself: ad80700, 4f9c653).
Thanks.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#23 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/23) `closed`: LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL 

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11277437?v=4" width="50">[rubeecube](https://github.com/rubeecube) opened issue at [2019-07-22 12:05](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/23):

Hello,

Thank you for this awesome project!

It seems that "LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL" / "LOCK_DOWN MANDATORY" enable other flags.

- No unsigned modules and no modules for which can't validate the signature.
- No use of ioperm(), iopl() and no writing to /dev/port.
- No writing to /dev/mem or /dev/kmem.
- No hibernation.
- Restrict PCI BAR access.
- Restrict MSR access.
- No kexec_load().
- Certain ACPI restrictions.
- Restrict debugfs interface to ASUS WMI.

http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1704.0/02933.html 

Is it possible to reflect this in the script?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/67428?u=cc677701e49dca0be4cdc6ea10bc60b52a181e4e&v=4" width="50">[jelly](https://github.com/jelly) commented at [2019-07-22 12:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/23#issuecomment-513767366):

The kernel lockdown patch has not been merged yet and I'm not sure if it's possible to enable these hardening functionality without the patch.

Also the linked patch is out of a date, there is a newer revision implemented as LSM https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20190404003249.14356-1-matthewgarrett@google.com/T/#m50dd383459d65d52d80c90f36af860a7c10f364c

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11277437?v=4" width="50">[rubeecube](https://github.com/rubeecube) commented at [2019-07-22 12:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/23#issuecomment-513770393):

Ok, I'm new to this and didn't know that.
Thanks

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-07-23 12:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/23#issuecomment-514184160):

Some distros like Fedora or Ubuntu are using lockdown kernel patches for a long time.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-08-12 08:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/23#issuecomment-520338183):

Hello everyone!

@bokobok, some time ago I looked through the lockdown patchset in Ubuntu kernel tree.
I marked the kernel options enforced by lockdown with a special comment in the script:
```
# refers to LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL
```
For more details please see https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/commit/796a22935ab5cd3ddcf19c4ea85411d9bf04fef6

When the lockdown patchset is finally merged, I will look through the commits once again and update the script.

@jelly @Bernhard40, thanks for your commentary.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/67428?u=cc677701e49dca0be4cdc6ea10bc60b52a181e4e&v=4" width="50">[jelly](https://github.com/jelly) commented at [2019-08-12 18:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/23#issuecomment-520540892):

It's getting close to mainline http://kernsec.org/pipermail/linux-security-module-archive/2019-August/015795.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#22 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/22) `merged`: #20 fix: use right quotes in json output

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4029800?u=86702d3f2d50ee01ef1c572ef26b1ea1318f28da&v=4" width="50">[adrianopol](https://github.com/adrianopol) opened issue at [2019-07-07 19:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/22):

#20: fix quotes for --json




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#21 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/21) `merged`: add --json option

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4029800?u=86702d3f2d50ee01ef1c572ef26b1ea1318f28da&v=4" width="50">[adrianopol](https://github.com/adrianopol) opened issue at [2019-06-21 19:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/21):

With `--json` output will be formatted as array of arrays:

`[['CONFIG_BUG', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ...`

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4029800?u=86702d3f2d50ee01ef1c572ef26b1ea1318f28da&v=4" width="50">[adrianopol](https://github.com/adrianopol) commented at [2019-06-24 09:24](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/21#issuecomment-504931635):

Fixed.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-06-24 11:11](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/21#issuecomment-504965369):

Thank you!
Merged.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#20 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20) `closed`: JSON output

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/964610?u=f244bab6b14967638a88cef92752379e64b15996&v=4" width="50">[Wenzel](https://github.com/Wenzel) opened issue at [2019-06-10 14:11](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20):

Hi,

I would like to integrate your project into a Python script which would check the security settings automatically and provide a report.

Would it be possible to have an easily parsable JSON output ?
Otherwise processing with your data will be very difficult, if you are not human.

Thanks !

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-06-11 10:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20#issuecomment-500775436):

Hello @Wenzel 

> I would like tot integrate your project into a Python script which would check the security settings automatically and provide a report.

Nice!

> Would it be possible to have an easily parsable JSON output ?
Otherwise processing with your data will be very difficult, if you are not human.

It sounds reasonable. I'll have a look in my free time.
If you already know how to implement it, the pull request is welcome!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-06-24 11:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20#issuecomment-504965591):

Hello @Wenzel and @nettrino,

@adrianopol has added the JSON output feature (#21), please check the `--json` argument.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/964610?u=f244bab6b14967638a88cef92752379e64b15996&v=4" width="50">[Wenzel](https://github.com/Wenzel) commented at [2019-07-07 12:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20#issuecomment-508997348):

Hi @a13xp0p0v , @adrianopol ,

I would like to reopen this issue because I just tested the `--json` flag, and the output produced is not valid JSON.

`piping in jq`
![Screenshot_20190707_144843](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/964610/60768633-84977d00-a0c6-11e9-978a-ebbb65e9ed11.png)


Output example for `./kconfig-hardened-check.py -c /boot/config-5.1.12-300.fc30.x86_64 --json`
~~~
[['CONFIG_BUG', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_RETPOLINE', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_X86_SMAP', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_VMAP_STACK', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK', 'y', 'defconfig', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_WX', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: not found'], ['CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: not found'], ['CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: not found'], ['CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: not found'], ['CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: not found'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_SG', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_CREDENTIALS', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_FALLBACK', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_MODULE_SIG', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA512', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR', '65536', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL', 'y', 'kspp', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_SLAB_MERGE_DEFAULT', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT is needed'], ['CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: not found'], ['CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK is needed'], ['CONFIG_STACKLEAK_RUNTIME_DISABLE', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK is needed'], ['CONFIG_RANDOM_TRUST_CPU', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_MICROCODE', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_IOMMU_SUPPORT', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM', 'y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_DEFAULT_ON', '
y', 'clipos', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU', 'y', 'my', 'self_protection', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2', 'y', 'my', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "m"'], ['CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON', 'y', 'my', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN', 'y', 'my', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION', 'y', 'my', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY', 'is not set', 'my', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING is needed'], ['CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO', 'is not set', 'my', 'self_protection', 'FAIL: CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING is needed'], ['CONFIG_SECURITY', 'y', 'defconfig', 'security_policy', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA', 'y', 'kspp', 'security_policy', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SECCOMP', 'y', 'defconfig', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER', 'y', 'defconfig', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM', 'y', 'defconfig', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_MODULES', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_DEVMEM', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM', 'y', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_METHOD', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "m"'], ['CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_DEVKMEM', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "m"'], ['CONFIG_INET_DIAG', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "m"'], ['CONFIG_KEXEC', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_PROC_KCORE', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_HIBERNATION', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_LEGACY_VSYSCALL_NONE', 'y', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "is not set"'], ['CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_X86_X32', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_MODIFY_LDT_SYSCALL', 'is not set', 'kspp', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_X86_PTDUMP', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK: not found'], ['CONFIG_KPROBES', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_UPROBES', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_GENERIC_TRACER', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_USELIB', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_USERFAULTFD', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "m"'], ['CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_DEVPORT', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_DEBUG_FS', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_NOTIFIER_ERROR_INJECTION', 'is not set', 'grsecurity', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE', 'is not set', 'lockdown', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_EINJ', 'is not set', 'lockdown', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "m"'], ['CONFIG_PROFILING', 'is not set', '
lockdown', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL', 'is not set', 'lockdown', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_MMIOTRACE_TEST', 'is not set', 'lockdown', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_KSM', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_IKCONFIG', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_KALLSYMS', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_X86_VSYSCALL_EMULATION', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_USER_NS', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_LDISC_AUTOLOAD', 'is not set', 'clipos', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_MMIOTRACE', 'is not set', 'my', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_LIVEPATCH', 'is not set', 'my', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_IP_DCCP', 'is not set', 'my', 'cut_attack_surface', 'OK'], ['CONFIG_IP_SCTP', 'is not set', 'my', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "m"'], ['CONFIG_FTRACE', 'is not set', 'my', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_BPF_JIT', 'is not set', 'my', 'cut_attack_surface', 'FAIL: "y"'], ['CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS', '32', 'clipos', 'userspace_protection', 'FAIL: "28"']]
~~~

Could you rework the PR and check the JSON output ?
I think it might be a trivial fix, like double quotes instead of simple quotes:
![Screenshot_20190707_145217](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/964610/60768672-e0620600-a0c6-11e9-80f8-4454265c50fc.png)


Thanks !

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/964610?u=f244bab6b14967638a88cef92752379e64b15996&v=4" width="50">[Wenzel](https://github.com/Wenzel) commented at [2019-07-07 12:55](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20#issuecomment-508997636):

It should be more robust to use `json.dump(obj)` or `json.dumps(string)` instead of printing your own JSON.
https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kconfig-hardened-check.py#L377

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4029800?u=86702d3f2d50ee01ef1c572ef26b1ea1318f28da&v=4" width="50">[adrianopol](https://github.com/adrianopol) commented at [2019-07-07 19:28](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20#issuecomment-509024571):

Fixed. Thanks.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-07-08 14:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/20#issuecomment-509241942):

@Wenzel, thanks for the report.
@adrianopol, thanks for the fix, merged.
Double-checked it in json validator, now it should be fine.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#19 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19) `closed`: Compare with clipos recommendations

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2019-06-01 12:08](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19):

Hi Alexander,

I monitoring an interesting project ([CLIP OS ](https://github.com/clipos)) in my country and some options should be compared with your project.

Here are some options that are missing or different from kconfig-hardened-check :

```
CONFIG_AUDIT=y
CONFIG_IKCONFIG=n
CONFIG_KALLSYMS=n
CONFIG_SLAB_HARDENED=y
CONFIG_SLAB_CANARY=y
CONFIG_SLAB_SANITIZE=y
CONFIG_SLAB_SANITIZE_VERIFY=y
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE=n
CONFIG_LOCAL_INIT=n
CONFIG_X86_VSYSCALL_EMULATION=n
CONFIG_MICROCODE=y
CONFIG_X86_MSR=y
CONFIG_KSM=n
CONFIG_MTRR=y
CONFIG_X86_PAT=y
CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM=y
CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MPX=n
CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS=n
CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP=n
CONFIG_COREDUMP=n
CONFIG_TCG_TPM=n
CONFIG_RANDOM_TRUST_CPU=n
CONFIG_IOMMU_SUPPORT=y
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU=y
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM=y
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_DEFAULT_ON=y
CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ=n
CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON=n
CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS=y
CONFIG_PANIC_TIMEOUT=-1
CONFIG_INTEL_TXT=n
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE_STRICT_STRING=n
CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER_PATH=""
CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM=n
CONFIG_INTEGRITY=n
CONFIG_SECURITY_PERF_EVENTS_RESTRICT=y
CONFIG_PAGE_SANITIZE_VERIFY=y
CONFIG_SECURITY_TIOCSTI_RESTRICT=y
CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_MANDATORY=y
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_TRACK_MIN_SIZE=100
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS=n
CONFIG_STACKLEAK_RUNTIME_DISABLE=n
```

Details of the options are available here:
https://docs.clip-os.org/clipos/kernel.html#configuration

Best regards,

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2019-06-01 12:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-497939852):

Even if I'm not a fan of black magic (see [this](https://github.com/intel/Intel-Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-Files/issues/3)), the CONFIG_MICROCODE=y option is now essential.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-06-02 11:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-498022889):

Some of those options are available only in linux-hardened patchset thus not applicable here. Others like CONFIG_INTEGRITY=n or CONFIG_INTEL_TXT=n are specific to clipos and general recommendations would be the opposite.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2019-06-02 15:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-498039692):

Yes, you're right, I did a quick extraction. 
Are there any options you think are interesting?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-06-03 10:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-498201117):

Cool! @HacKurx, learning the CLIP OS config is a nice idea.

Thanks for the link, I'll check the options from their documentation and choose relevant for the script.

Do you have their full kernel config for adding to `config_files`?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-06-03 18:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-498368130):

Hi @HacKurx and @Bernhard40,
I've added new checks based on the CLIP OS recommendations.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2019-06-03 19:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-498384402):

Hi @a13xp0p0v,

Thanks you :)

> Do you have their full kernel config for adding to config_files?

The configuration is automatically generated by a script in their own kernel source:
https://github.com/clipos/src_platform_config-linux-hardware/tree/master/
https://github.com/clipos/src_external_linux

I can ask @tsautereau-anssi for confirm it.

Best regards,

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-06-04 10:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-498612884):

@a13xp0p0v `CONFIG_X86_MSR` could also be set to `m` which I think should be ok.

At least Ubuntu, Debian, Archlinux and opensSUSE have it set this way.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-06-04 22:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/19#issuecomment-498862822):

>@a13xp0p0v CONFIG_X86_MSR could also be set to m which I think should be ok.
At least Ubuntu, Debian, Archlinux and opensSUSE have it set this way.

@Bernhard40, thanks for pointing this out.
I double-checked and dropped this recommendation - IMO it's wrong.
CONFIG_X86_MSR provides access from the userspace to the x86 MSRs via char devices.
Kernel doesn't need it for mitigating CPU bugs.

I've created an issue with a question for the CLIP OS project:
https://github.com/clipos/src_platform_config-linux-hardware/issues/1


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#18 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/18) `merged`: Update pentoo config link

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2019-06-01 12:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/18):






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#17 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/17) `merged`: Update and add config

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2019-05-12 15:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/17):

Hi Alexander,

Here are some updates and the addition of two distributions.

I let you choose ;)

Best regards,

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-05-17 15:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/17#issuecomment-493490338):

Hello @HacKurx,
Thanks for the update!
I'm merging it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-05-17 15:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/17#issuecomment-493492947):

@HacKurx, may I ask you to add/update information in the `links.txt` as well?
Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2019-05-25 16:59](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/17#issuecomment-495933123):

Hello @a13xp0p0v,

Thank's for the merge. Some configuration files do not have a url (debian, ubuntu, rhel), I had to extract the configuration from the kernel package.
I am willing to maintain all config occasionally.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-05-27 14:39](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/17#issuecomment-496234113):

Nice, thanks!

I mean some of your new configs now have out-of-date links in `links.txt`.
For example, Alpine, Arch and Pentoo. Could you please update the links?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#16 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/16) `closed`: After kspp settings server if freezed

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) opened issue at [2019-04-11 12:37](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/16):

Hey guys,

When i setup server Centos 7 with kspp settings (config below) and i install www hosting panels like Cpanel, CWP panel or ISPmanager and then reboot server, many services are freezed. My network is disabled i cant run with command systemct start network, i cant  reboot server and etc... when i push these commend nothing happen, just waiting and waiting.

My KSPP config:

[+] config check is finished: 'OK' - 62 / 'FAIL' - 41
[root@proton kconfig-hardened-check]# ls
config_files  kconfig-hardened-check.py  LICENSE  README.md
[root@proton kconfig-hardened-check]# ./kconfig-hardened-check.py -c /boot/config-5.0.4 > kspp_setting
[root@proton kconfig-hardened-check]# cat kspp_setting 
[+] Trying to detect architecture in "/boot/config-5.0.4"...
[+] Detected architecture: X86_64
[+] Checking "/boot/config-5.0.4" against hardening preferences...
  option name                            | desired val | decision |       reason       ||        check result        
  ===================================================================================================================
  CONFIG_BUG                             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX               |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG           |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG                      |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX               |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION            |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY                |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE                  |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_RETPOLINE                       |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_X86_SMAP                        |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP                  |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES                     |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_VMAP_STACK                      |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK             |      y      |defconfig |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION          |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_WX                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED          |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM            |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS                     |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY       |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST                      |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_SG                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_CREDENTIALS               |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS                 |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY               |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_FALLBACK      | is not set  |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG                      |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA512               |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR           |    65536    |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL                   |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK            |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL                |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found       
  CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON                   |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT         |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER           |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN                |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION         |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLAB_MERGE_DEFAULT              | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY        | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO             | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY                        |      y      |defconfig |  security_policy   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA                   |      y      |   kspp   |  security_policy   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DISABLE        | is not set  |   kspp   |  security_policy   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECCOMP                         |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER                  |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM                   |      y      |defconfig | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULES                         | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_DEVMEM                          | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM                |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_METHOD              | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK                      | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEVKMEM                         | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO                     | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC                     | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_INET_DIAG                       | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_KEXEC                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_PROC_KCORE                      | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS                     | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_HIBERNATION                     | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_LEGACY_VSYSCALL_NONE            |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION                  | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_X86_X32                         | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODIFY_LDT_SYSCALL              | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_X86_PTDUMP                      | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT                   | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER                      | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK                  | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT                     | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found        
  CONFIG_KPROBES                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_UPROBES                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_GENERIC_TRACER                  | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE                     | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR               | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_USELIB                          | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE              | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_USERFAULTFD                     | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT                 | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY                  | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_DEVPORT                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_DEBUG_FS                        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_NOTIFIER_ERROR_INJECTION        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE              | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_EINJ                  | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_PROFILING                       | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL                     | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_MMIOTRACE_TEST                  | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found        
  CONFIG_MMIOTRACE                       | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE                      | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_LIVEPATCH                       | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_USER_NS                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_IP_DCCP                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_IP_SCTP                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_FTRACE                          | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_BPF_JIT                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS              |     32      |    my    |userspace_protection||         FAIL: "28"         

[+] config check is finished: 'OK' - 62 / 'FAIL' - 41


Someone can help me with this, i would be graceful ?
Could be impact because of this ?
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS | y | kspp | self_protection || OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT | y | kspp | self_protection || OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK | y | kspp | self_protection || OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL | y | kspp | self_protection || OK
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY | y | kspp | self_protection || OK

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-04-11 19:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/16#issuecomment-482272466):

Could you post `dmesg` output?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) commented at [2019-04-14 13:50](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/16#issuecomment-482980574):

Hey,

Sure.
I put my KSPP config again but as a screen: https://ufile.io/epovx3h9
Second part of KSPP config:  https://ufile.io/n4087vqn

Output from dmesg:
dmesg 1 - https://ufile.io/2reh95ag
dmesg 2 - https://ufile.io/mkt1sv73

Thanks,

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-04-14 20:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/16#issuecomment-483056865):

Hello @bryn1u,

As I can understand, you are trying to run Centos 7 with the mainline kernel (5.0.7).
I would recommend you to move by smaller steps.

First -- update your kernel, but use `make oldconfig` with the original kernel config from Centos 7.
Maybe something will break even after this step.

And then try to enable hardening options one by one performing your functional test after each change.
You can speed up this procedure using bisection method (between the initial and final configs).

@Bernhard40, any other advices?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#15 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/15) `closed`: After used KSPP settings, modules ext4, xfs, iptables are disabled.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) opened issue at [2019-03-22 13:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/15):

Hello a13xp0p0v :))

Im using centos 7 and i have a weird problem after kernel compilation. Below is my config kernel with KSPP options enabled.
![kernel1](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3471772/54824577-a271db00-4cab-11e9-92fc-4974a17b41d1.png)
![kernel2](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3471772/54824582-a69df880-4cab-11e9-9c34-604be7280fd1.png)
![kernel3](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3471772/54824586-ab62ac80-4cab-11e9-98af-5b5c98baa232.png)

I have no idea why after kernel compiling, modules like for example ext4, xfs and iptables are disabled. I can't login to the system because ext4 module is disable. The only way is to compiling permanently not as a module. But iptables still dosen't work. Which options are responsible for these "issues" ?
Thanks for help :)


#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-03-23 17:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/15#issuecomment-475888038):

It could be caused by `CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER`. This option needs userspace support which is pretty much non-existent in distros, don't use it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) commented at [2019-03-23 20:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/15#issuecomment-475900478):

Thanks Bernhard40. I disabled usermodhelper and it works.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-24 11:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/15#issuecomment-475950377):

Hello!

@Bernhard40, thanks for your help!

@bryn1u, I remember we have discussed with you that STATIC_USERMODEHELPER and SECURITY_LOADPIN influence module loading -- in #8.

That's why the script has the following comments:
```
checklist.append(OptCheck('STATIC_USERMODEHELPER', 'y', 'my', 'self_protection')) # needs userspace support (systemd)
checklist.append(OptCheck('SECURITY_LOADPIN', 'y', 'my', 'self_protection')) # needs userspace support
```


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#14 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14) `closed`: User namespace useful especially when running containers

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1397088?v=4" width="50">[jcberthon](https://github.com/jcberthon) opened issue at [2019-03-19 14:59](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14):

Maybe I'm wrong, but at least with Kernel 5.0 USER_NS is activated by default, so "is not set" or "y" should be equivalent. At the moment, it fails because it is "y" on my configuration.

I know that activating USER_NS can cut the attack surface if it is not needed on a system. But on my system which are running containers, I want to have USER_NS activated. True this is not pure hardening of the Kernel, but if we take into account the whole kernel including the possibilities to use it to make containers, then USER_NS should be part of the whole hardening.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-03-19 18:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-474500985):

> Maybe I'm wrong, but at least with Kernel 5.0 USER_NS is activated by default, so "is not set" or "y" should be equivalent. At the moment, it fails because it is "y" on my configuration.

"is not set" (disabled) is the opposite of "y" (enabled). The fail for "y" is desired outcome.

> I know that activating USER_NS can cut the attack surface if it is not needed on a system. But on my system which are running containers, I want to have USER_NS activated. True this is not pure hardening of the Kernel, but if we take into account the whole kernel including the possibilities to use it to make containers, then USER_NS should be part of the whole hardening.

You have it backwards. **Disabling** USER_NS [cuts the attack surface](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings#sysctls) and is part of kernel hardening. USER_NS (unprivileged) are considered inherently insecure and unfixable.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1397088?v=4" width="50">[jcberthon](https://github.com/jcberthon) commented at [2019-03-19 21:20](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-474589104):

Thanks for clarifying the first point.

Concerning the second point, I know that username space could increase the attack surface (heck I recall there was like 1,5-2 years ago a privilege escalation flaw with user ns - albeit mitigated when using SELinux), that's especially true if the functionality is not used.

Anyway as the site you mention implicitly state, you can still compile it in and use the sysctl knob to disable it depending on your threat model and your usage of the kernel. So your application could test the sysctl knob rather than the kernel config. e.g. for people using Ubuntu but following the guideline (and because they do not need it), they can disable it in sysctl. When running your script, they should see that it is correctly disabled. What do you think?

_Note that when someone requires to run containers, user ns can be a good evil. It increases some risk but diminished others. It is a trade off which depends on one's threat model. I mean that I clearly prefer to run my containers as non-root user with as little capabilities as possible, so I would not need user namespaces. But I'm also maintaining a CI/CD environment based on Docker, and there it is pretty hard to deny users the use of root inside spawned containers. I can control capabilities, seccomp and SELinux, but not the root user. There I really need user namespace, I have no other choice._

Do you have a source for user ns being considered unfixable?

Anyway, I understand your reasoning for marking user ns as insecure, so I would not be offended if you would decide to close this issue. Of course I would appreciate you take my suggestion into account :-)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2019-03-19 21:32](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-474592962):

its not just one like 2 years ago, userns is an endless stream of privilege escalation flaws exposed by root designed functionality accessible to any unprivileged user inside a user namespace over and over again.

In my personal opinion this should remain as is, being an error, and if your personal threat model doesn't care about user_ns you can just ignore the result of kconfig-hardened-check :cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1397088?v=4" width="50">[jcberthon](https://github.com/jcberthon) commented at [2019-03-19 22:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-474613483):

Alright, and thanks for the feedback.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-20 06:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-474708180):

Hello everyone,

I'm a bit late for the discussion.

@jcberthon, thanks for your message.
Yes, the `CONFIG_USER_NS` option provides some isolation between the userspace programs, but the script recommends disabling it to cut the attack surface __of the kernel__.
Let me give the links describing the rationale:
  
  1. A nice LWN article about the corresponding LKML discussion: https://lwn.net/Articles/673597/
  2. A twitter thread about USER_NS and security: https://twitter.com/robertswiecki/status/1095447678949953541

@jcberthon, you are right, USER_NS can be disabled using the sysctl - it is even mentioned in the script source code:
```
checklist.append(OptCheck('USER_NS', 'is not set', 'my', 'cut_attack_surface')) # user.max_user_namespaces=0
```

(by the way, adding the ability to check kernel boot parameters and sysctl would be really nice)

Thanks for your discussion, I think I should add some clarification of `cut_attack_surface` to the README.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-03-20 12:25](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-474807051):

> (by the way, adding the ability to check kernel boot parameters and sysctl would be really nice)

I'm not sure if it's good idea for this project to start scanning the running system for security features. I would vote for keeping it simple and just check chosen config file.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-20 13:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-474826371):

> > (by the way, adding the ability to check kernel boot parameters and sysctl would be really nice)
> 
> I'm not sure if it's good idea for this project to start scanning the running system for security features. I would vote for keeping it simple and just check chosen config file.

I agree, I don't like the privileged scanning of a system from the script too.
I mean the script could analyze additional files with the needed information together with the kernel config.
For example, right now we can say nothing about side-channel attack mitigations.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1397088?v=4" width="50">[jcberthon](https://github.com/jcberthon) commented at [2019-03-20 23:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/14#issuecomment-475063272):

Thank you for the interesting read and for the updated README.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#13 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/13) `closed`: False positive and false negatives

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) opened issue at [2019-03-09 19:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/13):

`PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY` and `PAGE_POISONING_ZERO` depend on `PAGE_POISONING`. Checking distro config which doesn't enable `PAGE_POISONING` (like Fedora) will show `OK: not found` for the first two even as it's far from ok in this case.

Currently script checks only for `MODULE_SIG_SHA512`. Some distros (like Fedora) may use `SHA256` which I think should be fine as well even if KSPP chose different example.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-11 16:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/13#issuecomment-471614645):

Hello @Bernhard40,
Thanks for your report, let's discuss it.

> PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY and PAGE_POISONING_ZERO depend on PAGE_POISONING. Checking distro config which doesn't enable PAGE_POISONING (like Fedora) will show OK: not found for the first two even as it's far from ok in this case.

Yes, they are dependent on PAGE_POISONING.
These options make this feature weaker, so the script is checking that they are __disabled__.
When the PAGE_POISONING is disabled, the error count is incremented anyway.
I don't think that checking PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY and PAGE_POISONING_ZERO should behave differently in that case.

> Currently script checks only for MODULE_SIG_SHA512. Some distros (like Fedora) may use SHA256 which I think should be fine as well even if KSPP chose different example.

The MODULE_SIG_SHA512 option is the KSPP recommendation, it is explicitly indicated by the script.
Distros may have various reasons to do it differently.
One day the script will support the error annotations (the idea is described here: https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/9#issuecomment-453810119)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-03-12 00:07](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/13#issuecomment-471790830):

> Yes, they are dependent on PAGE_POISONING.
> These options make this feature weaker, so the script is checking that they are disabled.
> When the PAGE_POISONING is disabled, the error count is incremented anyway.
> I don't think that checking PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY and PAGE_POISONING_ZERO should behave differently in that case.

Consider distro which have PAGE_POISONING=n. In check it gets:
```
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set" 
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY        | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||       OK: not found
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO             | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||       OK: not found
```
The sum is: 1xFAIL + 2xOK

Now, consider distro which has PAGE_POISONING=y, PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY=y, PAGE_POISONING_ZERO=y. In check it gets:
```
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY        | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||         FAIL: "y"
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO             | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||         FAIL: "y"
```
The sum is: 2xFAIL + 1xOK

The check shows that distro which disables PAGE_POISONING completely is better than one which enables its weaker version! Specifically for fedora it's 52 errors with the former (actual config) vs 53 errors with the latter.

> The MODULE_SIG_SHA512 option is the KSPP recommendation, it is explicitly indicated by the script.

I read this recommendation as _sign your modules_ rather than _sign your modules using SHA512_. The KSPP page says [But if CONFIG_MODULE=y is needed, at least they must be signed with a per-build key](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings#CONFIGs). Below they show an example with SHA512. I highly doubt they meant SHA512 explicitly and nothing else. IMO they just used one example because iterating it for SHA256/SHA384 would be rather redundant. You may ask Kees about what he had in mind when he wrote this.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-12 15:31](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/13#issuecomment-472049899):

> The check shows that distro which disables PAGE_POISONING completely is better than one which enables its weaker version! Specifically for fedora it's 52 errors with the former (actual config) vs 53 errors with the latter.

Right. Please have a look how I've solved this issue.
 - I've implemented the AND check: 555b588e7b8a620ee57d53ef771e3b128590de45.
 - It's now used for PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY and PAGE_POISONING_ZERO - they are not checked if PAGE_POISONING is off: a314e4f1df3893864e398ea8565fefdfc036169b.
 - The same approach for HARDENED_USERCOPY_FALLBACK: c83dc6c7c804987999296afba385b2349bdda9ac.
 - And I improved the output of final results: 43920b20672cd603f7d5e02544a951eec914636b. Now OKs are counted too.

> You may ask Kees about what he had in mind when he wrote this.

Ok, I will remember that. There are several things which can be added to KSPP wiki. I'll work on that later.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-03-12 17:53](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/13#issuecomment-472112024):

> It's now used for PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY and PAGE_POISONING_ZERO - they are not checked if PAGE_POISONING is off:

You could also always mark them as failed in that case like `FAIL: "dependency missing"`. That would prevent FAIL count from increasing when enabling only PAGE_POISONING.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-12 21:54](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/13#issuecomment-472196588):

> You could also always mark them as failed in that case like FAIL: "dependency missing"

@Bernhard40, nice idea, thank you.
Implemented in d9aca2d28e9f95266bca2da09625d7d2c885a6b2.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#12 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/12) `closed`: CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE shouldn't be checked if CONFIG_MODULES is not set

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/990588?v=4" width="50">[hannob](https://github.com/hannob) opened issue at [2019-03-03 12:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/12):

I have a minimal kernel without modules for a server. I get a warning about CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE, which should not apply for a kernel without module support.

For several other module-related options the script behaves correctly (saying 'CONFIG_MODULES: OK ("is not set")' indicating this does not apply), but for CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE it does not do so.

Output is:
```
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found       
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-04 13:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/12#issuecomment-469256961):

Fixed.
Thank you @hannob.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#11 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/11) `closed`: Feature request: Check CONFIG_RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/990588?v=4" width="50">[hannob](https://github.com/hannob) opened issue at [2019-03-02 08:17](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/11):

Thanks for this tool.

I'd propose to add a check for CONFIG_RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION.
This is a feature that on modern systems will set a flag on boot that signals the BIOS to wipe the memory if an unclean shutdown happened. This can protect against some forms of cold boot attacks where you reboot into another system and try to read out the memory from the previous run.

Here's the Kernel submission with some explanation:
https://lwn.net/Articles/730006/

It's also explained in this talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvPZnLkP70 (around minute 35)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-03-02 12:47](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/11#issuecomment-468917523):

This option needs userspace support, otherwise it's not recommended for use:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a5c03c31af2291f13689d11760c0b59fb70c9a5a

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532058

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/990588?v=4" width="50">[hannob](https://github.com/hannob) commented at [2019-03-03 12:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/11#issuecomment-469018559):

Interesting, is there any userspace tool to do this? Or is this basically unsupported in current systems?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2019-03-03 12:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/11#issuecomment-469019815):

@hannob I wanted to look into this for systemd, but forgot for quite a while. thanks for reminding me, back then there was no userspace support, theoretically you could add a systemd service but doing it _properly_ is bit more tricky. I'm putting this back onto my todo list and take a dive into how to properly implement this into systemd itself at a place that could guarantee that all other services etc. are already properly shut down.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-04 14:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/11#issuecomment-469280355):

Hello @hannob @Bernhard40 @anthraxx,

`RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION` is a nice option, I will add this check to the script with a comment about userspace support.

That case will be similar to the `STATIC_USERMODEHELPER` option, which needs the userspace support as well (but, as I know, enabling it currently breaks systemd workflow on Ubuntu).

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-03-04 18:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/11#issuecomment-469362767):

Hm... By the way Ubuntu 18 has `RESET_ATTACK_MITIGATION` enabled.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#10 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10) `closed`: Add support for x86_32, arm, and arm64 architectures

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) opened issue at [2019-01-14 19:37](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10):

(This is a continuation of #9)

Some hardening recommendations are dependent on the processor architecture. For example, the KSPP recommendations differ between [x86_32](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings#x86_32) and [x86_64](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings#x86_64).

This pull request adds the ability to reason about the architecture when constructing the checklist. It also teaches the script about `x86_32`, `arm`, and `arm64` specific config recommendations.

I verified that all the example configs in `config_files/` show the same number of config check failures before and after these changes are applied. Of course, the ordering of the options are changed since the ordering used to construct the checklist has been changed.

Some changes since #9 include:
- Drop kernel version detection from the pull request
- Rename `detect_arch_and_version()` to `detect_arch_from_config()`
- Look for `CONFIG_X86_32` and `CONFIG_X86_64` when detecting `x86` sub architecture
- Restrict the accepted `-a <ARCHITECTURE>` values to those found in `SUPPORTED_ARCHS`

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-14 20:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-454158772):

Hello @tyhicks , thanks a lot for the follow-up! Let me propose some improvements.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-14 21:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-454173475):

@tyhicks , thanks for your work again!
Let me propose one more idea. What do you think about splitting [KSPP recommended settings](http://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings) onto 4 arch-specific configs in `./config_files/`?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-17 18:04](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-455270114):

Yes, I can add 4 arch-specific configs in `./config_files/`.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-17 23:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-455373860):

I've rebased on top of your current tree, fixed up a few things, added what I think you were asking for in the arch-specific KSPP files, and force pushed to this branch.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-18 12:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-455526516):

Ouch. 
@tyhicks , excuse me please!
I've made a code review 3 days ago, but didn't hit "submit" button, so it is "pending" :(
I've just realized that you haven't seen my review when I looked at your rebased branch.
My fault.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-18 13:01](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-455538355):

If you don't have time/desire, I can pick up your branch and polish it myself.
Thank you again!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-18 23:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-455718260):

> If you don't have time/desire, I can pick up your branch and polish it myself.

I won't mind if you do the polishing yourself.

> Thank you again!

No problem. Thanks for all the review comments.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-24 08:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-457102717):

Hello @tyhicks ,

I've finished with arch support based on your work.
Do you like it?
Do you have any comments or requests?
Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-24 15:34](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/10#issuecomment-457240527):

Thanks for finishing out the work. It looks very good to me. I'll make use of the changes over the next week or so and submit new pull requests if I spot anything wrong/missing. Thanks again!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#9 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9) `closed`: Teach the script about target architecture and kernel version

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) opened issue at [2019-01-12 00:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9):

Some recommendations are dependent on the processor architecture and/or the kernel version. For example, the KSPP recommendations differ between [x86_32](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings#x86_32) and [x86_64](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings#x86_64). Additionally, option names change over time such as when `CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG` was [renamed](https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kernel_Self_Protection_Project%2FRecommended_Settings&diff=3983&oldid=3976).

This pull request adds the ability to reason about the architecture and version when constructing the checklist. It also teaches the script about `x86_32`, `arm`, and `arm64` specific config recommendations.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-12 00:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-453698919):

I verified that all the example configs in `config_files/` show the same number of config check failures before and after these changes are applied. Of course, the ordering of the options are changed since the ordering used to construct the checklist has been changed.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-12 17:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-453767322):

Hello @tyhicks ,

Thank you very much for this pull request! Great!

I briefly looked through the patches and I would like to discuss the approach with you before we proceed.

1. Generally I like the way you introduce SUPPORTED_ARCHS. I also like that the script will have this '-a' argument, it's a good idea. I will look closer to this code.

2. It looks to me that introducing kernel versions will bring more troubles than profit.
In fact all these options have a special version when they appeared in the mainline. Some of them were renamed as well. So if we make the script aware of kernel versions, we will have to add full knowledge about them, but I don't think that it's useful.
IMO it's better to check the config against the recent mainline options and support renamed ones using the OR operator. If the user checks some old config with the script, we will print the errors for hardening options which appeared later, and it is nice. Maybe that will even encourage the user to update the kernel for getting these new hardening features.
What do you think?

May I ask you to extract arch support into a separate pull request? We will work further to merge it.

Thanks again for your time!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-12 19:48](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-453775979):

> Thank you very much for this pull request! Great!

Glad that you find it useful. I plan to use the script and these changes to audit all of the Ubuntu kernel configs and enable reasonable hardening options that aren't yet enabled.

> It looks to me that introducing kernel versions will bring more troubles than profit.
In fact all these options have a special version when they appeared in the mainline. Some of them were renamed as well. So if we make the script aware of kernel versions, we will have to add full knowledge about them, but I don't think that it's useful.
IMO it's better to check the config against the recent mainline options and support renamed ones using the OR operator. If the user checks some old config with the script, we will print the errors for hardening options which appeared later, and it is nice. Maybe that will even encourage the user to update the kernel for getting these new hardening features.
What do you think?

To be honest, I expected that you'd dislike the kernel version checking. I am on the fence about its usefulness, as well. It currently doesn't add much functionality on top of what `OR()` already provides. My long term thought was to extend minimum version checks to all the options (it really isn't too difficult to do that) so that I could then run the script on old Ubuntu kernel configs, such as the `3.13` kernel in Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, and get clean output that doesn't have a bunch of false negatives for that old kernel.

Maybe I'll just drop the version checking now and, in the future, propose some type of external overrides file that lets me ignore the false negatives when running against a given version of an old kernel. Additionally, this would let me specify overrides for certain options that we simply can't enable in a general purpose distro kernel.

> May I ask you to extract arch support into a separate pull request? We will work further to merge it.

Certainly. It might not happen today but I'll get a new PR up very soon.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-12 19:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-453776169):

@a13xp0p0v I have a slightly unrelated question about the script that I'll ask here since I mentioned using this script with our Ubuntu kernel configs. What does `ubuntu18` mean in the `decision` column of the script output? I assume that you're talking about Ubuntu 18.04 LTS but it feels like `kspp` should be used for nearly all of those rows instead of `ubuntu18` as I consider the KSPP project as the "upstream" that makes these recommendations.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-13 08:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-453810119):

> Glad that you find it useful. I plan to use the script and these changes to audit all of the Ubuntu kernel configs and enable reasonable hardening options that aren't yet enabled.

Nice. I want this script to serve all your needs out of the box.

> To be honest, I expected that you'd dislike the kernel version checking. I am on the fence about its usefulness, as well. It currently doesn't add much functionality on top of what `OR()` already provides. My long term thought was to extend minimum version checks to all the options (it really isn't too difficult to do that) so that I could then run the script on old Ubuntu kernel configs, such as the `3.13` kernel in Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, and get clean output that doesn't have a bunch of false negatives for that old kernel.

Ok, I see. In other words we need some functionality for categorizing and muting script errors, right?

I face a similar task as well and currently I solve it manually:
1. check some kernel config using the script;
2. copy errors from the report to a separate file and annotate each error. Examples:
    - this option doesn't exist in that old kernel version,
    - enabling/disabling this option breaks the user requirement (e.g. some users need HIBERNATION),
    - enabling/disabling this option breaks some code (e.g. enabling STATIC_USERMODEHELPER breaks systemd workflow on Ubuntu 18),
    - this option is not enabled since the feature is controlled via kernel command line param (e.g. CONFIG_LEGACY_VSYSCALL_NONE is not set, but the kernel command line has vsyscall=none),
    - and finally some errors are marked with TODO.

> Maybe I'll just drop the version checking now and, in the future, propose some type of external overrides file that lets me ignore the false negatives when running against a given version of an old kernel. Additionally, this would let me specify overrides for certain options that we simply can't enable in a general purpose distro kernel.

Yes, let's create that!

I see two approaches:
  - Support the formatted comments in the kernel config. The script will parse them and mute/annotate the errors in its report.
  - Support formatted annotations in a separate file. We will run `./kconfig-hardened-check.py -c config -a annotations` and have a pretty report.

What do you think?

> > May I ask you to extract arch support into a separate pull request? We will work further to merge it.
> 
> Certainly. It might not happen today but I'll get a new PR up very soon.

Thank you! Take your time, we are not in a hurry.

> I have a slightly unrelated question about the script that I'll ask here since I mentioned using this script with our Ubuntu kernel configs. What does ubuntu18 mean in the decision column of the script output? I assume that you're talking about Ubuntu 18.04 LTS but it feels like kspp should be used for nearly all of those rows instead of ubuntu18 as I consider the KSPP project as the "upstream" that makes these recommendations.

The `decision` column helps me to maintain the list of recommendations.

The values in `decision` column have this "rank" for me:
  1. ubuntu18
  2. kspp
  3. grsecurity and lockdown
  4. my

So I use:
  - `ubuntu18` for hardening recommendations already adopted by Ubuntu 18.04 LTS,
  - `kspp` for hardening recommendations that are listed in KSPP recommended settings but __not__ adopted by Ubuntu 18.04 LTS,
  - `grsecurity` for `cut_attack_surface` recommendations from their patch which are __not__ in KSPP recommended settings list,
  - `lockdown` for `cut_attack_surface` functionality from the lockdown patch series which is __not__ mentioned in KSPP recommended settings list,
  - `my` for hardening recommendations which I consider reasonable, but others don't mention.

Thanks for your question, I think I should document that in the README.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2019-01-13 12:31](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-453825869):

@a13xp0p0v isn't better to make `kspp` as base for recommendations instead of `ubuntu18`? As @tyhicks mentioned the current order takes it backwards . The alternative would be to use `defconfig` here. I understand that `ubuntu18` is your personal choice but it's highly opinioniated.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2019-01-14 13:35](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-454006535):

@Bernhard40 , thanks for a reasonable comment. I will use `defconfig` as the basis.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1051156?u=82b8caad104296ef90ffe2f5807dc34d82c31c2b&v=4" width="50">[tyhicks](https://github.com/tyhicks) commented at [2019-01-14 19:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/9#issuecomment-454133942):

Closing this pull request in favor of #10


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#8 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/8) `closed`: couldn't mount to /sysroot after compile kernel with KSPP options.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) opened issue at [2018-12-17 15:33](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/8):

Hello Alexander,

After kernel compilation im getting issue "unknow filesystem type ext4", "Failed to mount /sysroot"
I was wondering which KSSP feature could be responsible for it ? I was trying many times and always getting the same issue as i mentioned. Sceenshot 
https://www.centos.org/forums/download/file.php?id=2571
It looks like my initramfs doesn't have the kernel module for ext4 but why.

Im using Centos 7 with gcc 7.2

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-12-18 11:55](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/8#issuecomment-448195919):

Hello @bryn1u ,

I don't know the reason of such behavior on Centos.
Distros can have various issues because of the kernel hardening options, for example systemd on Ubuntu-18 has troubles with kernel modules unloading because of CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER.

It would be great if you find the reason and share the result.
I would recommend you to use binary search to do it faster.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) commented at [2018-12-18 22:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/8#issuecomment-448390343):

Hey,

I checked many options and recompiled kernel many times to find some answers, but it looks like everything works like a charm. I was doing everything based on Centos 7 with devtoolset-7 enabled to get never version of gcc like 7.2.  With CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN  enabled im not able to load any module and getting "operation not permitted". Im guessing it's supposed to be like that. 
@a13xp0p0v 
Don't you know if ubuntu developers will enable KSPP options to the ubuntu kernel ? Or only manual compilation is available to get more security features ?
Thanks !

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-12-19 11:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/8#issuecomment-448569306):

> With CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN enabled im not able to load any module and getting "operation not permitted". Im guessing it's supposed to be like that.

Thanks for information!

That's the description of CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN:
`Any files read through the kernel file reading interface (kernel modules, firmware, kexec images, security policy) can be pinned to the first filesystem used for loading. When enabled, any files that come from other filesystems will be rejected.`

I guess in your case the first modules are loaded from the ramdisk, and later loading from root filesystem fails.

>Don't you know if ubuntu developers will enable KSPP options to the ubuntu kernel ? Or only manual compilation is available to get more security features ?

It's slow but steady process. More and more kernel hardening options are enabled by distros.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) commented at [2018-12-22 12:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/8#issuecomment-449567219):

Hello
I have a weir problem. After successfully compiled kernel i can't use iptables:

> 
> [root@localhost ~]# iptables -L
> iptables v1.4.21: can't initialize iptables table `filter': Table does not exist (do you need to insmod?)
> Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded.

What am i doing wrong ?

Kernel KSSP options:

```
option name                            | desired val | decision |       reason       ||        check result        
  ===================================================================================================================
  CONFIG_BUG                             |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION            |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_RETPOLINE                       |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_X86_64                          |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_X86_SMAP                        |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP                  |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX               |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_WX                        |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE                  |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY                |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG           |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_VMAP_STACK                      |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK             |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK           |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG                      |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED          |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM            |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY               |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE                  |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL                |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found       
  CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX               |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG                      |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL                  |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA512               |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES                     |      y      | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR           |    65536    | ubuntu18 |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION          |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING                  |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS                     |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK           |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY       |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL                   |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST                      |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_SG                        |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_CREDENTIALS               |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS                 |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE                |      y      |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY_FALLBACK      | is not set  |   kspp   |  self_protection   ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK            |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||      FAIL: not found       
  CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG_ON                   |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT         |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER           |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN                |      y      |    my    |  self_protection   ||     FAIL: "is not set"     
  CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_NO_SANITY        | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING_ZERO             | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SLAB_MERGE_DEFAULT              | is not set  |    my    |  self_protection   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY                        |      y      | ubuntu18 |  security_policy   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA                   |      y      | ubuntu18 |  security_policy   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DISABLE        | is not set  | ubuntu18 |  security_policy   ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECCOMP                         |      y      | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER                  |      y      | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM                   |      y      | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_METHOD              | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK                      | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEVKMEM                         | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO                     | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found        
  CONFIG_X86_PTDUMP                      | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_ZSMALLOC_STAT                   | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER                      | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK                  | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT                     | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found        
  CONFIG_MMIOTRACE_TEST                  | is not set  | ubuntu18 | cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found        
  CONFIG_IO_STRICT_DEVMEM                |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_LEGACY_VSYSCALL_NONE            |      y      |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC                     | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_INET_DIAG                       | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_KEXEC                           | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_PROC_KCORE                      | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS                     | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION                  | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_X86_X32                         | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MODIFY_LDT_SYSCALL              | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_HIBERNATION                     | is not set  |   kspp   | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_KPROBES                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_UPROBES                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_GENERIC_TRACER                  | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE                     | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR               | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_USELIB                          | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE              | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_USERFAULTFD                     | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT                 | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY                  | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||       OK: not found        
  CONFIG_DEVPORT                         | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_DEBUG_FS                        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_NOTIFIER_ERROR_INJECTION        | is not set  |grsecurity| cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE              | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_EINJ                  | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_PROFILING                       | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL                     | is not set  | lockdown | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_MMIOTRACE                       | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||             OK             
  CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE                      | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_LIVEPATCH                       | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_USER_NS                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_IP_DCCP                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_IP_SCTP                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "m"          
  CONFIG_FTRACE                          | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_BPF_JIT                         | is not set  |    my    | cut_attack_surface ||         FAIL: "y"          
  CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS              |     32      |    my    |userspace_protection||         FAIL: "28"         

[-] config check is NOT PASSED: 29 errors

```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-12-25 12:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/8#issuecomment-449846419):

Hello @bryn1u ,
The error message which you posted makes me think that your issue is about kernel modules loading.
I would recommend you to look at the kernel log for more information and bisect again to find the reason.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#7 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/7) `closed`: Removing security features during kernel compilation.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) opened issue at [2018-12-05 13:21](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/7):

Hey,

Im trying do my best with security options based on your script. I have a litte problems with few options. 

When im adding these options:
```
# Enable GCC Plugins
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS=y

# Gather additional entropy at boot time for systems that may not have appropriate entropy sources.
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY=y

# Force all structures to be initialized before they are passed to other functions.
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK=y
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL=y

# Randomize the layout of system structures. This may have dramatic performance impact, so
# use with caution or also use CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT_PERFORMANCE=y
CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT=y
```
And make a "make -j 8 deb-pkg" on ubuntu or "make -j8 bzImage ...." on centos, these options are removing immediately from ".config" in kernel-4.19.6 . I have no idea what's going on. Could you tell me what am i doing wrong ?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-12-05 21:08](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/7#issuecomment-444648549):

Hello @bryn1u ,

Kconfig disables these options automatically because your gcc doesn't support plugins.
If you have gcc-7 on Ubuntu, try to install gcc-7-plugin-dev package. It should help.

And thanks for your question. I'll add this information to README.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-12-05 21:31](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/7#issuecomment-444656696):

Added 478e5f266df05b5f75badef59914c8b0e71e3e0e

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3471772?v=4" width="50">[bryn1u](https://github.com/bryn1u) commented at [2018-12-06 21:08](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/7#issuecomment-445030219):

Hello,

Now it works :) thanks ! I have one question about CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK . This is the one option which is removing during compilation. Is it any way to enable it or isn't it available in kernel-4.19.7 yet ?
Thanks again :)

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-12-07 06:59](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/7#issuecomment-445141837):

Yes, CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK will be available in Linux 4.20.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#6 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/6) `closed`: Removed long lines on output + minor fix

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7037785?u=6ac77234884c153e7fd38e3732be16d9760509ea&v=4" width="50">[c0rv4x](https://github.com/c0rv4x) opened issue at [2018-07-30 14:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/6):

I removed long lines from `print` and `format` functions.
Also i edited function `get_option_state` now uses `dict.get` method to extract a key from dict with default value 

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-30 20:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/6#issuecomment-408993713):

Applied!
Thank you @iad42 !


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#5 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/5) `closed`: Oop refactoring

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7037785?u=6ac77234884c153e7fd38e3732be16d9760509ea&v=4" width="50">[c0rv4x](https://github.com/c0rv4x) opened issue at [2018-07-28 21:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/5):

Made the program a liitle bit more OOP.

I created a UserConfig class to store the state of the user's config.
Outputter class is responsible for outputting major results (however, not all the prints are there)
OR and OptConifg were moved to a separate file
Checklist got its own class with a method `check(config)` that performs all the checks from the checklist against user's config

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-30 09:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/5#issuecomment-408807705):

The last commit adds a ```__pycache__``` directory with bython bytecode cache files, that commit should be amended

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-30 09:50](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/5#issuecomment-408809392):

Cool that you invest time with this, but personally speaking I'm bit mixed here what the justification/gain is to introduce the complexity and split other then "but oop and modules". Right now it's quite handy to just have the whole thing in a single file that could be copied to /usr/bin dir f.e. and I don't think its expected that lots lots lots of additional modules and python functions are needed beyond this.

Otherwise, if the project goes the path to make it more modular, then it should at least also have setup.py dist file (you may want to add one) so it can actually be distributed and used properly as a module and by distros for packaging python.

My 2 cents is that a single file isn't too bad after considering the current scope and content

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7037785?u=6ac77234884c153e7fd38e3732be16d9760509ea&v=4" width="50">[c0rv4x](https://github.com/c0rv4x) commented at [2018-07-30 10:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/5#issuecomment-408821023):

You are right about `__pycache__`, that is my fault.

As for sticking to a single file, i clearly see your point and agree with you. However, OOP style is obviously easier to extend and easier to read. As long as the author (a13xp0p0v) is expecting the tool to grow, i consider that we should stick to an easier form of code in terms of adding code rather that terms of easy-to-run. 

Also, thanks for the note on setup.py file, i will surely fix that problem!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-30 10:42](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/5#issuecomment-408822137):

Hello @iad42 and @anthraxx ,

Yes, Anatoly, thanks for your time! Your PR made me review the script and gave some new ideas.
I see now what we can improve:
 1. currently parsing config file, filling 'OptCheck.state' values in 'checklist' and performing actual checks all mixed in check_config_file(). It would be nice to split them. What approaches do you see?
 2. there are two global vars now: 'checklist' and 'debug_mode'. I see that some of design drawbacks are connected with that fact. It would be cool to get rid of them during the refactoring.
 3. the script is quite small now, I like that all the functionality stays in a single file.
 4. @iad42 , I like how you cut the long lines in printing the output. I want to merge it. Can you put the final ')' on the second line, like that:
```
print('  CONFIG_{:<32}|{:^13}|{:^10}|{:^20}||{:^28}'.format(
            opt.name, opt.expected, opt.decision, opt.reason, opt.result))
```

Thanks!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7037785?u=6ac77234884c153e7fd38e3732be16d9760509ea&v=4" width="50">[c0rv4x](https://github.com/c0rv4x) commented at [2018-07-30 14:39](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/5#issuecomment-408886952):

@a13xp0p0v 

I created a separate pull request https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/pull/6 for the 4th bullet point on your list. Also i added a tiny fix for working with dict


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#4 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4) `closed`: Add more config files

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2018-07-20 20:31](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4):

Hello @a13xp0p0v,

Just like I promised.

Best regards.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2018-07-23 19:03](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-407166514):

Don't we overdo with the number of configs here? This project allows everyone for checking any config they want themselves so what is the point of storing them here? One or two as example is enough. Most of them will be outdated sooner or later anyway.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-23 19:18](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-407170808):

Yeah I agree, also they are outdated quite fast and who maintains the configs?
To compare and test stuff, it would make sense to have a small amount of general purpose configs like ubuntu, debian and have some hardened examples like kspp, archlinux-hardened and others. I don't think it is or should be the scope of the project to collect them all

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-24 12:11](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-407384626):

Hello,

Allow me first of all to take stock of the results:

**pentoo-hardened-2018.0rc7.config** = **30 errors** (config of iso image)
**Archlinux-hardened.config** = 33 errors (config available via **gitweb**)
Qubes-latest.config = 38 errors (config of linux package)
**Alpinelinux-edge.config** = 44 errors (config available via **gitweb**)
Fedora-Rawhide.config = 48 errors (config of linux package)
**Archlinux-Testing.config** = 49 errors (config available via **gitweb**)
debian-sid-amd64.config = 49 errors (config of linux package)
Kali-linux.config = 49 errors (config of linux package)
Owl-3.1config = 50 errors (config of linux package)
Parrot-security-4.1.config = 52 errors (config of linux package)
ubuntu-bionic-generic.config = 52 errors (config of linux package)
**oracle-uek5.config** = 54 errors (config available via **gitweb**)
Mageia-cauldron.config = 57 errors (config of linux package)
**SLE15.config** = 58 errors (config available via **gitweb**)
**Opensuse-git.config** = 62 errors (config available via **gitweb**)
Trisquel-Flidas.config = 63 errors (config of linux package)

All config available via **gitweb** are easy to maintain with a bash script.
Then for some I didn't use the stable branch but the development branch to have an up-to-date config.

So I lets @a13xp0p0v choose what he prefers.

But I wish in any case to maintain pentoo-hardened in view of its result :smiley:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-24 23:06](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-407580227):

Hello @HacKurx @anthraxx @Bernhard40 ,

Yes, we don't have a goal to collect all the configs and update them.
At the same time I appreciate @HacKurx efforts.

So what do you think about this solution:
1. drop the configs of minor distributions (Owl-3.1config, Kali-linux.config, Parrot-security-4.1.config, Mageia-cauldron.config, Trisquel-Flidas.config);
2. add the concrete release/version to the config file names ("sid" and "rawhide" are bad version names since they just mean "unstable", right?);
3. add a links.txt with the available links to the configs.

Does it sound reasonable to you?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2018-07-25 11:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-407725269):

Yeah, keeping well know distros and non-rolling release kernels make sense.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-25 19:28](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-407868315):

Hello @a13xp0p0v ,

> Does it sound reasonable to you?

Yeah, okay, I'll take care of it.

@Bernhard40 

> Yeah, keeping well know distros and non-rolling release kernels make sense.

I know, but for old kernels we need use more OR class. Example: CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX, CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA.

In addition certain points must be corrected, as for example the recommendation "CONFIG_LKDTM" is impossible to respect without breaking the recommendation of Grsecurity on DEBUG_FS.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-27 21:29](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-408543338):

Hello @HacKurx , thanks for your work.

1. I've commented out the LKDTM rule. You are right about it.

2. I'll check what we can do about CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX, CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA. 

3. I've merged some of your commits, so now 'config' directory has: 
 -  Alpinelinux-edge.config (I want to keep it)
 -  Archlinux-hardened.config (ditto)
 -  debian-stretch.config
 -  oracle-uek5.config
 -  SLE15.config
 -  ubuntu-bionic-generic.config

May I ask you to do a bit more work to make it excellent?
 - could you check the links for Alpine Linux in your links.txt? They both give similar result.
 - could you find links for debian-stretch and ubuntu-bionic configs?
 - could you add configs for some stable versions of Pentoo Hardened and openSUSE?
If so, in the result we will have some consistence between links.txt and config files.

Thank you a lot!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-28 06:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-408587814):

Hello @a13xp0p0v ,

> could you check the links for Alpine Linux in your links.txt? They both give similar result.

Because the edge version currently uses the same kernel as the stable 3.8 version.

> could you find links for debian-stretch and ubuntu-bionic configs?

Not sure, but I'll look.

> could you add configs for some stable versions of Pentoo Hardened and openSUSE?

Yes of course the links are in the file.

I'll take care of it soon.
Thank you too. Best regards.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-08-01 21:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-409734659):

Hello @a13xp0p0v ,

> I'll check what we can do about CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX, CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA.

Thank you, I just saw your changes regarding that. If you want to be thorough then you should also do the same for :
```
PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION             = PAX_PER_CPU_PGD, MEMORY_UDEREF_MELTDOWN
RANDOMIZE_BASE, RANDOMIZE_MEMORY = PAX_ASLR
HARDENED_USERCOPY                = PAX_USERCOPY
GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT            = GRKERNSEC_RANDSTRUCT
GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK            = PAX_MEMORY_STRUCTLEAK
GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL  = PAX_MEMORY_STRUCTLEAK ?
GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY        = PAX_LATENT_ENTROPY
REFCOUNT_FULL                    = PAX_REFCOUNT
GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK             = PAX_MEMORY_STACKLEAK
SECURITY_YAMA                    = GRKERNSEC
```

It's be a good friendly gesture.

I'm still looking for some points and I'm quite busy but I always take care of them.

Regards.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-08-03 20:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-410373163):

Hi @HacKurx ,

> PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION             = PAX_PER_CPU_PGD, MEMORY_UDEREF_MELTDOWN

Umm... Where can I learn more about these options?

> RANDOMIZE_BASE, RANDOMIZE_MEMORY = PAX_ASLR

No, I'm absolutely sure that KASLR != PAX_ASLR.

> HARDENED_USERCOPY                = PAX_USERCOPY
> GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT            = GRKERNSEC_RANDSTRUCT
> GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK            = PAX_MEMORY_STRUCTLEAK
> GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL  = PAX_MEMORY_STRUCTLEAK ?
> GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY        = PAX_LATENT_ENTROPY
> REFCOUNT_FULL                    = PAX_REFCOUNT
> GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK             = PAX_MEMORY_STACKLEAK

Have you seen my Linux Kernel Defence Map?
https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/linux-kernel-defence-map
Please have a look, I've displayed the origins of these features (and praised grsecurity) in that map.

> SECURITY_YAMA                    = GRKERNSEC

Excuse me, I don't see the connection between these options. Can you share more details?

Thank you!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-08-04 14:56](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-410455183):

Hi @a13xp0p0v ,

> Umm... Where can I learn more about these options?

```
 config PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION
        bool "Remove the kernel mapping in user mode"
        default y
-       depends on X86_64 && SMP
+       depends on X86_64 && SMP && !PAX_PER_CPU_PGD && BROKEN
        help
          This enforces a strict kernel and user space isolation, in order
          to close hardware side channels on kernel address information.
```

and 

```
+config PAX_MEMORY_UDEREF_MELTDOWN
+       bool "Prevent i386 Meltdown attacks (READ HELP!)"
+       default n
+       depends on X86_32 && PAX_MEMORY_UDEREF
+       help
+         By saying Y here, UDEREF will be enhanced to fully close off
+         Meltdown attacks against the kernel.  This will prevent the
+         creation of expand-down segments and will limit all TLS segments
+         to the end of the userland address space.
...
```
If you want to know more, you just have to convince a large company (google? microsoft ^^) to finance their research in a public way :innocent:

> No, I'm absolutely sure that KASLR != PAX_ASLR.

Oops I confused PAX_RANDUSTACK(depends on PAX_ASLR) and PAX_RANDKSTACK.

> Excuse me, I don't see the connection between these options. Can you share more details?

```
 config SECURITY_YAMA
        bool "Yama support"
-       depends on SECURITY
+       depends on SECURITY && !GRKERNSEC
        default n
```

Because not compatible.

> Have you seen my Linux Kernel Defence Map?

Great ! I'll look into it.

For the rest I couldn't find a link for the complete debian and ubuntu configurations. The reason is that the files are generated automatically:
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/tree/master/debian/config
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/raw/master/debian/config/amd64/config

What about CRYPTO_SPECK, what do you think?

Thanks you to again.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2018-08-04 16:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-410460070):

> If you want to know more, you just have to convince a large company (google? microsoft ^^) to finance their research in a public way 😇

So, until that happens there is no point for adding support for options which almost no one can use.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-08-04 17:30](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-410465146):

>  So, until that happens there is no point for adding support for options which almost no one can use.

So you want to create a false error to the persons who uses it?
KSPP's advances come from grsecurity don't forget it.
Besides the old versions are still a source of inspiration, right?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2018-08-04 17:53](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-410466573):

If someone uses grsecurity private code then they should seek support from grsecurity which they pay for, not from volunteers working for free.

Old versions are dead, nothing we can do about it.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-08-04 20:51](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-410476855):

Hello @HacKurx and @Bernhard40 ,

Please don't start another holy war about grsecurity.
- Yes, Brad and PaX Team are genius.
- Yes, a lot of KSPP work is inspired by (and sometimes copied from) grsecurity. The map shows that fact explicitly.
- Yes, almost all the mainline kernel self protection features are not compatible with grsecurity (and even marked as BROKEN).

@HacKurx , it's great that you have access to the recent grsecurity patches, lucky you. 
I don't have it, and I guess they will never give it to me.
So I would like to focus on the mainline kconfig options. Moreover, grsecurity users really don't need this funny script at all.

Thanks for understanding.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-08-08 12:36](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-411389774):

Hello @HacKurx ,

I've merged the rest of your PR with some fixes I previously mentioned.
Thank you very much.

Closing it now.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-08-08 21:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/4#issuecomment-411565682):

Hello @a13xp0p0v ,

> it's great that you have access to the recent grsecurity patches

Well, not really. It's complicated... Let's just say that I have elements that you don't have and that out of respect I didn't publish them. Spender and Pipacs have always answered my questions which is not the case with Linus for example (at the terrorist attack in my country I asked him to rename the version name to "Pray for Paris") but he didn't even take the time to answer...

> So I would like to focus on the mainline kconfig options.

Ok no problem. Rest assured I am not here for divide. I do not forget that if we discuss together it is above all because we appreciate at security in linux ;)

> I've merged the rest of your PR with some fixes I previously mentioned.

Great, thank you. I haven't found much interesting since.

Best regards.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#3 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3) `closed`: Add Grsecurity recommendation on BINFMT_AOUT

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) opened issue at [2018-07-18 18:52](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3):

Hi,

Recommendation starting from grsecurity-2.2.0-2.6.32.22-201009241805.patch.
Sorry, Linux historical interest is not secure ;)

Sorry for the tabulations in my code :D

Regards,

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2018-07-18 19:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406043222):

I'm curious, does anyone seen kernel with that option enabled in last 10 years?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-18 19:49](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406052730):

Today his is not the case but it is necessary to warn users better about the old code that is dangerous and that Linus will never want to delete.

Because otherwise I'm sure he's got geeks who'll activate him for fun...

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-18 20:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406059551):

@Bernhard40 to be precise (extraction from linux-4.18-rc5) shows that it's still using a little. The equipment on ARM being more recent.

m68k/configs/mvme147_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/apollo_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/multi_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/amiga_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/bvme6000_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/hp300_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/atari_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/q40_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/mac_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/sun3_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/sun3x_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
m68k/configs/mvme16x_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m

arm/configs/iop32x_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/badge4_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
arm/configs/corgi_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
arm/configs/neponset_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/imote2_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
arm/configs/lart_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/ebsa110_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/hackkit_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/ezx_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
arm/configs/jornada720_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/rpc_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/nuc960_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/nuc950_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/spitz_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m
arm/configs/footbridge_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/netwinder_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/iop13xx_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y
arm/configs/iop33x_defconfig:CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=y

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-19 19:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406381446):

No thanks to you @a13xp0p0v 

I have corrected as requested, I hope it will suit you.
I've done everything since the github editor which explains the many commit.

Too bad kconfig is so limited with conditions because it would be nice to have a menu to choose its security level (basic, custom, paranoid) when configuring the linux kernel.

So I took my inspiration from grsec to make something simpler:
https://github.com/HacKurx/public-sharing/blob/master/disables_unsecured_options.patch

Thanks, best regards.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-19 20:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406408269):

@HacKurx btw, i have seen you added Arch Linux config: there is a hardened arch kernel as well with more protective options.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-19 21:08](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406414918):

Hello @HacKurx,

Cool thanks, I'll merge it soon!

I only will not take dropping "not found" from OK status, since it is important information:
explicit "is not set" is different from the option absence in the config file, I want it to be displayed in the script output.

Thanks again!
Till soon.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-20 11:56](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406579032):

@anthraxx 
> there is a hardened arch kernel as well with more protective options.

Yes indeed. It's fixed.

@a13xp0p0v 

I will have fun adding main distributions config but it would be necessary to create a folder not to pollute it.
This will allow an easy comparison to be made.

What do you think of that?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-20 12:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406585795):

Yes, moving configs into a separate directory is a good idea.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-20 14:59](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406627110):

It's done.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-20 18:10](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406683275):

Hello @HacKurx,
Thanks for your work, it's merged (except "not found" dropping).
Nice!

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-20 18:54](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/3#issuecomment-406695869):

Thank you to you too.
I will complete the config_files folder because the results are very interesting :)

See you soon. Best regards,


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#2 PR](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2) `closed`: Feature/improvements

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) opened issue at [2018-06-20 22:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2):

Improve the source to make it easier to iterate over options by making the checks and all kernel config options a dictionary. Additionally implement logical operator to support or conditional checks.

Refactor option parsing to use pythons argparse

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-06-20 22:16](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-398915150):

At the end lots of lines changed, please ask anything you want to suggest any changes you would like to see. Even through the changes look massive, I believe they will pay out and make some stuff easier to maintain and access for potential future features.

I'm happy to take any feedback :cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-06-21 20:50](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-399239396):

Thank you very much for your time spent on that!
I like the ideas behind your changes and I want to merge them in the end.

Currently I have 2 concerns about the changes:
1. the commits are really big, I would like to split them. From the top of my head, we can split infrastructure changes from new checks, etc.
2. we should consider the case: MODULES or (MODULE_SIG and MODULE_SIG_ALL and MODULE_SIG_SHA512).

How much time would you like to spend on this? I don't have a right to ask you for more.
At least I see your ideas and I can split (and learn) the commits myself.

Thank you, again.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-06-21 23:13](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-399271969):

All of this sounds reasonable to me! I already spent some time on this and I'm sure I may contribute in the future as well so I would be super happy to change the commits as long as it satisfies you!
I will split out the DEVMEM and STACKPROTECTOR changes and see if I can split at even more. Should be easy with rebase edit.

Latter case you described should easily be possible with an AND class that is like the OR class, everything else should work out of the box.

Cheers
Levente

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) commented at [2018-06-22 20:50](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-399578012):

Just FYI, in Linux 4.18 `CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG` [was renamed](https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v4.18-rc1/arch/Kconfig#L585) to `STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG` and `CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO` is gone.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-06-25 16:27](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-400013145):

Thanks for the info, @Bernhard40. I'll update the STACKPROTECTOR config option when 4.18 is released.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-06-25 22:47](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-400119687):

@a13xp0p0v I have splitted up the commits as much as made sense, can you please take a look? Really don't fear nitpicking, I'm used to do open-source :yum: 

PS: this also handles STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG by using the OR operator.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-06-26 21:26](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-400467818):

Thanks a lot for your work, @anthraxx !
I'll review this version in a couple of days.
Till soon.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-09 18:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-403574284):

@a13xp0p0v round 2, fight! :cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-14 09:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-405010041):

Well I personally don't think it's a good idea to parse and check one line separately and don't really see why It can't be a dict. Curious how you want to check AND and OR logic on other opts if the config it not fully parsed yet. Personally, parsing it yet again for such logic sounds like non optimal algorithm/approach to me.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-14 09:02](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-405010151):

Why not just check for existence before assigning parsed_options[config] and call it a day?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-14 20:05](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-405046688):

Ah, yes, I see.
You are right. AND & OR logic can't be implemented if we check the config file line by line.
Moreover, separating parsing the file and checks should be a good design solution.

So the first commit in the series is fine.
I would only ask to add the assertion to get_option_state() and call this function outside the Opt class method (just use the Opt.name from outside).
I would also ask to reorder the series:
  1. all arch changes and renaming;
  2. AND & OR;
  3. new rules.

If you have no time/motivation for that work, I will do it myself.

Thanks again, @anthraxx. I'm glad to have your attention to this project.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-14 20:57](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-405049389):

Yay! No worries, I like to discuss solutions and opinions as collaborative work and exchange is much more effective!
I would be happy to make the changes as you requested, will push an update and rebased version very soon.
Cheers 🍻

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4661917?u=bb7aeb3c77839cea055b49b80168666b36315f3d&v=4" width="50">[theLOICofFRANCE](https://github.com/theLOICofFRANCE) commented at [2018-07-19 19:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406384461):

I don't know if you're doing it, but CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS should be replaced by: 
```
CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MIN=28
CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX=32
```

found in Linux kernels: 4.5–4.17, 4.18-rc+HEAD

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-19 20:44](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406408491):

@HacKurx no, i really want to get this PR through finally. After that me, you or whoever can make that CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS change.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-19 20:48](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406409433):

@a13xp0p0v I have made the adjustments you wanted to see:
- get_option_state is moved out of the class and assigned before checking
- reordered all commits (wow, this was quite some work >.>)

I really hope we can get this in soon, I'm still there to make any changes if you request some but quite a lot of time already went in to make you happy :cat: :cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-19 20:56](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406411723):

Hello @anthraxx 

Cool, thanks for your work, I'm going to do the review soon.
Yes, we've already spent plenty of time on that, because it's not so easy: this PR changes almost everything :)

Anyway, I like your ideas, they will be merged in the end.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-19 20:58](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406412140):

@a13xp0p0v Yay thanks, don't get me wrong I really like to work with you on this and i really enjoy it very much. Also I'm 100% on your side to get commits that make it into the tree proper, I just wanted to get that the rework conflicted a lot off my chest :smile:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-19 21:15](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406416764):

@a13xp0p0v just in case you already pulled my branch, please re-pull as there was a typo in the STACKPROTECTOR option, sorry. tested and reviewd every single commit independent from each other again

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-20 18:09](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406683207):

Hello @anthraxx,

I've cherry-picked all your architecture improvements and added some minor fixes (please have a look).
You've done a great job, I appreciate it!

Now we are ready to merge your OR and AND support.
I have some questions, could you answer please?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-21 08:12](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-406779757):

These are used to print the table and use the very first option of a logical class to represent the group by showing the first entries name and expected value

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-24 22:00](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-407566128):

Hello @anthraxx ,
Thanks for your explanation.
It took me some time to realize that self.opts[0] is the option which that OR-check is about.
I.e. OR class use case is: OR(<X_is_hardened>, <X_is_disabled>)

I've merged your OR class with my minor fixes.

I don't think that we need AND right now. Rationale: our config checks are already implicitly connected with AND; if any of them fails, the error count increments anyway. Do you agree?

I also have a question about your STACKPROTECTOR commit.
As I see in the kernel git history, the "CC_" prefix is dropped from both STACKPROTECTOR and STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG. So how about having:
```
-    checklist.append(OptCheck('CC_STACKPROTECTOR',       'y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection'))
-    checklist.append(OptCheck('CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG','y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection'))
+    checklist.append(OR(OptCheck('CC_STACKPROTECTOR',    'y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection'), \
+                        OptCheck('STACKPROTECTOR',       'y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection')))
+    checklist.append(OR(OptCheck('CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG','y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection'), \
+                        OptCheck('STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG','y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection')))
```

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-24 22:41](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-407575301):

@a13xp0p0v Hmm true, it is for >= 4.18 but for all kernels before 4.18 this would generate an error where non should be. Having CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG without CC_STACKPROTECTOR is a totally correct setting pre 4.18 which would yield to an error.
Its shitty, but the more generally compatible way would be to combine the different "correct sets" with the logical class to just have a single checklist.append for STACKPROTECTOR

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-24 23:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-407582510):

And how about this?
```
-    checklist.append(OptCheck('CC_STACKPROTECTOR',       'y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection'))
-    checklist.append(OptCheck('CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG','y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection'))
+    checklist.append(OR(OptCheck('CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG','y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection'), \
+                        OptCheck('STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG','y', 'ubuntu18', 'self_protection')))
```

It fits your logic "be strong or fail".
At the same time it fits the case of old configs, where there is no CC_STACKPROTECTOR, right?

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-07-25 07:05](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-407655722):

yeah, i think that should work :smiley_cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-25 11:45](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/pull/2#issuecomment-407726202):

Done with STACKPROTECTOR and MODULES.
@anthraxx we have finished with this pull request.
Thanks for your excellent work :thumbsup:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# [\#1 Issue](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/1) `closed`: Couple ideas

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/32568352?v=4" width="50">[Bernhard40](https://github.com/Bernhard40) opened issue at [2018-06-20 13:19](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/1):

Shouldn't [NAMESPACES](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kconfig-hardened-check.py#L94) be replaced by `USER_NS`? AFAIK only user namespaces have security concerns, others are fine. Disabling them all will negatively affect many applications which use various namespaces for sandboxing.

Since linux 4.16 there is `CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO` kconfig which effectively replaces [CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kconfig-hardened-check.py#L54) and make it false negative in script.

Script doesn't check for [DEVMEM](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kspp-recommendations.config#L18) which when set to `n` make [STRICT_DEVMEM](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kconfig-hardened-check.py#L38) and [IO_STRICT_DEVMEM](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kconfig-hardened-check/blob/master/kconfig-hardened-check.py#L65) false negative.



#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-06-20 13:23](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/1#issuecomment-398746587):

I already nearly finished a PR for the DEVMEM and CC_STACKPROTECTOR_* case by adding context aware logic to the option checks.
Pull request incoming later today, it extends the options with logical operators like OR()

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/203012?u=939d6d3b5ff0b9e46e911d8792a40c20408574e2&v=4" width="50">[anthraxx](https://github.com/anthraxx) commented at [2018-06-20 19:14](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/1#issuecomment-398864576):

@a13xp0p0v please no force push, that creates weird merge diffs when working on something :smile_cat:

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-06-20 20:43](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/1#issuecomment-398890140):

@Bernhard40 , thanks a lot for the ideas. I agree. Just fixed the namespaces mistake.
@anthraxx , thanks, cool! Waiting for your PR.
And, yes, no more force push from me.

#### <img src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1419667?u=de82e29061c3ef5f1c19f95528f8a82b08051fd2&v=4" width="50">[a13xp0p0v](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v) commented at [2018-07-04 15:38](https://github.com/a13xp0p0v/kernel-hardening-checker/issues/1#issuecomment-402512111):

Closing, since @anthraxx PR will resolve it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

