Bug 1477887

Summary:	SELinux policy for Tomcat should not allow access to rpm database by default
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Reporter:	Jan Hutař <jhutar>
Component:	selinux-policy	Assignee:	Lukas Vrabec <lvrabec>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Milos Malik <mmalik>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	7.4	CC:	jhutar, lvrabec, mgrepl, mmalik, plautrba, pvrabec, ssekidde
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	selinux-policy-3.13.1-174.el7	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-04-10 12:36:40 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1477960

Description Jan Hutař 2017-08-03 07:06:08 UTC

Description of problem:
SELinux policy for Tomcat should not allow access to rpm database by default


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
selinux-policy-3.13.1-166.el7


How reproducible:
always


Steps to Reproduce:
1. From some application deployed in Tomcat application server attempt to
   access rpm database (initially observed on Spacewalk)


Actual results:
Application running in Tomcat is allowed to access rpm database


Expected results:
This should not be allowed (at least by default). When needed, should be allowed by application specific policy.


Additional info:
Opening this bug after discussion with Miroslav Grepl in bug 1451318.

Comment 1 Milos Malik 2017-08-03 07:13:42 UTC

Please attach SELinux denials that are triggered by your scenario.

# ausearch -m avc -m user_avc -m selinux_err -m user_selinux_err -i -ts today

Comment 2 Jan Hutař 2017-08-03 09:43:51 UTC

Please see bug 1451318 for details. Problem here is policy allows something which should be denied.

Comment 3 Miroslav Grepl 2017-08-03 13:21:55 UTC

(In reply to Jan Hutař from comment #2)
> Please see bug 1451318 for details. Problem here is policy allows something
> which should be denied.

I think it is a misinterpretation. Ii could be allowed by another way (a booelan maybe) and this bug is for a discussion of that from my point of view.

Is it OK?

Comment 4 Jan Hutař 2017-08-03 14:08:46 UTC

Yep, I'm not against discussion. With comment #0 and comment #2 I just wanted to state the problem.

Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2018-04-10 12:36:40 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:0763