Do not re-invent the wheel: It is tempting to extend the OS kernel with a better security model. Don't. Let the operating system apply its security to the objects it controls. On the other hand, it is OK to create application-level objects (abstractions) that have a custom security model.
Principle of least privilege: This should be applied both to the sandboxed code and to the code that controls the sandbox. In other words, the sandbox should work even if the user cannot elevate to super-user.
Assume sandboxed code is malicious code: For threat-modeling purposes, we consider the sandbox compromised (that is, running malicious code) once the execution path reaches past a few early calls in the main() function. In practice, it could happen as soon as the first external input is accepted, or right before the main loop is entered.
Be nimble: Non-malicious code does not try to access resources it cannot obtain. In this case the sandbox should impose near-zero performance impact. It's ok to have performance penalties for exceptional cases when a sensitive resource needs to be touched once in a controlled manner. This is usually the case if the OS security is used properly.
Emulation is not security: Emulation and virtual machine solutions do not by themselves provide security. The sandbox should not rely on code emulation, code translation, or patching to provide security.
Sandbox windows architecture
The Windows sandbox is a user-mode only sandbox. There are no special kernel mode drivers, and the user does not need to be an administrator in order for the sandbox to operate correctly. The sandbox is designed for 32-bit processes and has been tested on Windows 2000, Windows XP 32 bits, and Windows Vista 32 and 64 bits.
Sandbox operates at process-level granularity. Anything that needs to be sandboxed needs to live on a separate process. The minimal sandbox configuration has two processes: one that is a privileged controller known as the broker, and one or more sandboxed processes known as the target. Throughout the documentation and the code these two terms are used with that precise connotation. The sandbox is provided as a static library that must be linked to both the broker and the target executables.
The operating system might have bugs. Of interest are bugs in the Windows API that allow the bypass of the regular security checks. If such a bug exists, malware will be able to bypass the sandbox restrictions and broker policy and possibly compromise the computer. Under Windows, there is no practical way to prevent code in the sandbox from calling a system service.
How does Sandboxie protect me, technically?
Sandboxie extends the operating system (OS) with sandboxing capabilities by blending into it. Applications can never access hardware such as disk storage directly, they have to ask the OS to do it for them. Since Sandboxie integrates into the OS, it can do what it does without risk of being circumvented.
The following classes of system objects are supervised by Sandboxie: Files, Disk Devices, Registry Keys, Process and Thread objects, Driver objects, and objects used for Inter-process communication: Named Pipes and Mailbox Objects, Events, Mutexs (Mutants in NT speak), Semaphores, Sections and LPC Ports. For some more information on this, see Sandbox Hierarchy.
Sandboxie also takes measures to prevent programs executing inside the sandbox from hijacking non-sandboxed programs and using them as a vehicle to operate outside the sandbox.
Sandboxie also prevents programs executing inside the sandbox from loading drivers directly. It also prevents programs from asking a central system component, known as the Service Control Manager, to load drivers on their behalf. In this way, drivers, and more importantly, rootkits, cannot be installed by a sandboxed program.
The difference being that you don't needlessly increase attack surface or possibly mess with Chrome's built in security.
Attack surface is not measured in megabytes.
Yes, if Chrome's sandbox fails you you have a problem.
One can tell from its track record whther it works great or not.
Link to the tests where someone tries to find vulnerabilities etc in Sandboxie?
there aren't a hell of a lot of eyes on it regardless.
Whether one "measures up" to another isn't really relevant, they're two different methods to accomplish the same thing.
Link to the supposed limitations?
Source wrote:You should notice that the targets communicate with the broker via IPC channels. This is necessary for a few reasons. First, hooks are installed into every target process, intercepting most system calls and re-routing each call through the broker, who ultimately says whether the call should be allowed. Chromium makes it very clear in their design document about the sandbox that this is not meant to provide security:
"The interception + IPC mechanism does not provide security; it is designed to provide compatibility when code inside the sandbox cannot be modified to cope with sandbox restrictions."
From my point of view process isolation sandboxs have a intrinsic risk:
-It is difficult to intercept all that sandboxed process should not have access.
-It will introduce risky code in sensitive points of the system.
-Hooks and changes to the system will depend of the system version and build, and lof of times they will be dirty and undocumented.
-Surely you will need to add some exceptions in the way that Sandboxie does.
-Specifically, Sandboxie has risky code in kernel: PE headers parsing, ini files parsing.
My conclusion about Sandboxie is that it is a useful tool. I would run a navigator or a pdf reader sandboxed, to help to protect myself from vulnerabilities, but I wouldn’t run a malware to analyze its behaviour in Sandboxie, unless Sandboxie was running in vmware, bochs or other virtual machine.
It has the "right" eyes on it, this is especially clear when many malware coders are programming their works not to run under its sandbox. Don't discount the fact that people who hack like a challenge and would try to break anything because they can, irrelevant of whether its for financial gain or not.
OT: A little correction to your concepts: 'Security through obscurity' is when a program relies on the fact that its unknown to avoid being bypassed, Sandboxie uses 'security by design', where its known how it works but one can't break it even if they wanted to.
That is a huge design flaw that Sandboxie can handle while Chrome cannot.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests