You are not logged in.
Specifically, I am interested if blacklisting the uvcvideo module prohibits my webcam getting hacked (under the assumption that the hacker cannot reverse the blacklisting). This is more a theoretical question since I would disable the webcam for my use as well and I am aware of many other ways of keeping my system secure.
Last edited by FlowIt (2016-12-22 14:47:39)
Offline
If someone can log in to your machine, they can simply load the module again. So, it depends on how your machine/webcam was compromised. The safest option is to use a tape
Offline
Use a postnote or small piece of tape. Hack proof.
CPU-optimized Linux-ck packages @ Repo-ck • AUR packages • Zsh and other configs
Offline
This does not answer my question. I use tape, I am happy with it, I know it's secure.
But I am more interested in the theory behind this. We are talking about a remote attacker without root privilleges. Is it possible to access the camera (independently whether the attacker actually sees something or not) when the uvcvideo module is blacklisted?
Offline
from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ke … acklisting
The blacklist command will blacklist a module so that it will not be loaded automatically, but the module may be loaded if another non-blacklisted module depends on it or if it is loaded manually.
Not sure how a remote attacker could use that, but it does show a weakness in using blacklisting as a security measure .
Maybe blocking the kernel from seeing the camera device at all using vfio-pci or pci-stub would be a better way ?
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline
I'm not sure vfio-pci or pci-stub would work to bind to a specific usb device. You could use the install directive, that should really keep the module from loading. Without root access I'm not sure there can be raw access to the webcam but if you are worrying about a compromised machine it is game over anyway as the attacker could use a 0-day to gain root access.
R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K
Offline
We are talking about a remote attacker without root privilleges.
So no.
Unless they find a way to perform a privilege escalation.
What exactly is your threat model?
Offline
You realize the answers you are getting are all couched in conditionals. This is because you are asking about a black swan. If someone were to know of a specific way to hack a disabled webcam they could confirm it was possible (although asking about this on the forums would likely run afoul to legality rules). But if someone doesn't know of a specific way to hack a disabled webcam they cannot confirm that it is impossible - the best they can do is speculate about some approaches to the attack and ponder the feasibility of them.
No one who is both honest and rational could confirm that such a hack was impossible. On the other hand, if you want a dishonest or irrational answer, I'd be happy to provide one: your webcam is perfectly safe.
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline
There will always be conditionals when it comes to security questions. I am happy with the answers provided and will mark this as solved. So there is no trivial attack vector, but depending on how powerful the attacker is there might still be a vulnerability.
Offline
I found this after a ~10s google search:
http://insecure.org/sploits/kerneld.isc … _load.html
20 years old, but ok. Side-note, I'm happy to see how many people put tape over their laptop cameras.
Last edited by Alad (2016-12-22 15:21:37)
Mods are just community members who have the occasionally necessary option to move threads around and edit posts. -- Trilby
Offline
If linux is so ultra hackable why you are only worried about your webcam? What about the built in mic and on course your data? Why would someone just hack your webcam when they could have it all?
https://ugjka.net
"It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they've been fooled" ~ Dr. Andrea Love
Offline