LID / Linux Is Dying

Posted by secsecseec@reddit | linuxadmin | View on Reddit | 2 comments

Hello again, I’m azqzazq1, a cybersecurity researcher.

My previous research, SunnyDayBPF, was recently featured by Ollie Whitehouse, CTO at the UK NCSC, in the Cyber Defence Analysis weekly summary.

Now I’m working on a new low-level Linux security research idea and I’d really like to hear opinions from people interested in eBPF, LSMs, AppArmor, and Linux hardening.

While spending more time with BPF internals, I noticed an interesting trust-boundary problem.

At a high level, the LSM framework prevents one LSM from simply overriding another LSM’s deny decision. However, eBPF tracing mechanisms can operate outside that LSM decision flow. This creates an interesting gap when combined with pathname-based MAC enforcement.

The research explores whether pre-LSM pathname manipulation through eBPF can cause AppArmor to evaluate a different path than the one originally requested by the user process.

In other words:

Can the security decision remain technically “valid” while the observed enforcement target is shifted before the LSM check?

I’m currently calling this research:

LID — Linux Integrity Drift

The focus is not “turning off AppArmor”, but understanding how kernel tracing, pathname-based access control, and security enforcement assumptions can drift from each other under specific conditions.

I’d love to hear thoughts from people working on Linux security, eBPF, AppArmor, LSM internals, or runtime detection.

Security assumptions killing all the ecosystem.