Even the most secure software installations get broken into. Sometimes, this is because you get the attention of a skilled and persistent attacker. Sometimes, a new vulnerability is discovered, and an attacker uses it before the server is patched. Once an intruder gets in, his next step is to look for local vulnerability and become superuser. When this happens, the whole system becomes contaminated, and the only solution is to reinstall everything.
Our aim is to contain the intrusion to just a part of the system, and we do this with the help of the chroot(2) system call. This system call allows restrictions to be put on a process, limiting its access to the filesystem. It works by choosing a folder to become the new filesystem root. Once the system call is executed, a process cannot go back (in most cases, and provided the jail was properly constructed).
The root user can almost always break out of jail. The key to building an escape-proof jail environment is not to allow any root processes to exist inside the jail. You must also not have a process outside jail running as the same user as a process inside jail. Under some circumstances, an attacker may jump from one process to another and break out of jail. That’s one of the reasons why I have insisted on having a separate account for Apache.
The term chroot is often interchangeably used with the term jail. The term can be used as a verb and noun. If you say Apache is chrooted, for example, you are saying that Apache was put in jail, typically via use of the chroot binary or thechroot(2)system call. On Linux systems, the meanings of chroot and jail are close enough. BSD systems have a separatejail()call, which implements additional security mechanisms. For more details about thejail()call, see the following: http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/papers/jail/jail.html.
Incorporating the jail mechanism (using eitherchroot(2)orjail()) into your web server defense gives the following advantages:
Containment
If the intruder breaks in through the server, he will only be able to access files in the restricted file system. Unable to touch other files, he will be unable to alter them or harm the data in any way.
No shell
Most exploits need shells (mostly /bin/sh) to be fully operative. While you cannot remove a shell from the operating system, you can remove it from a jail environment.
Limited tool availability
Once inside, the intruder will need tools to progress further. To begin with, he will need a shell. If a shell isn’t available he will need to find ways to bring one in from the inside. The intruder will also need a compiler. Many black hat tools are not used as binaries. Instead, these tools are uploaded to the server in source and compiled on the spot. Even many automated attack tools compile programs. The best example is the Apache Slapper Worm (see the sidebar “Apache Slapper Worm”).
Absence of suid root binaries
Getting out of a jail is possible if you have the privileges of the root user. Since all the effort we put into the construction of a jail would be meaningless if we allowed suid root binaries, make sure you do not put such files into the jail.
Thechroot(2)call was not originally designed as a security measure. Its use for security is essentially a hack, and will be replaced as the server virtualization technologies advance. For Linux, that will happen once these efforts become part of a mainstream kernel. Though server virtualization falls out of the scope of this book, some information on this subject is provided in Chapter 9.
The following sections describe various approaches to putting Apache in jail. First, an example demonstrating use of the original chroot binary to put a process in jail is shown. That example demonstrates the issues that typically come up when attempting to put a process in jail and briefly documents tools that are useful for solving these issues. Next, the steps required for creating a jail and putting Apache in it using chroot are shown. This is followed by the simplerchroot(2)approach, which can be used in some limited situations. Finally, the use of mod_security or mod_chroot to chroot Apache is presented.
Apache Slapper Worm
The Apache Slapper Worm (http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-27.html) is arguably the worst thing to happen to the Apache web server as far as security goes. It uses vulnerabilities in the OpenSSL subsystem (http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-23. html) to break into a system running Apache. It proceeds to infect other systems and calls back home to become a part of a distributed denial of service (DDoS) network. Some variants install a backdoor, listening on a TCP/IP port. The worm only works on Linux systems running on the Intel architecture.
The behavior of this worm serves as an excellent case study and a good example of how some of the techniques we used to secure Apache help in real life.
The worm uses a probing request to determine the web server make and version from theServerresponse header and attacks the servers it knows are vulnerable. A fake server signature would, therefore, protect from this worm. Subsequent worm mutations stopped using the probing request, but the initial version did and this still serves as an important point.
If a vulnerable system is found, the worm source code is uploaded (to /tmp) and compiled. The worm would not spread to a system without a compiler, to a system where the server is running from a jail, or to a system where code execution in the /tmp directory is disabled (for example, by mounting the partition with anoexecflag).
Proper firewall configuration, as discussed in Chapter 9, would stop the worm from spreading and would prevent the attacker from going into the server through the backdoor.
/ 5 
