Our original example policy assigned unique levels/category sets to
each app (via levelFrom=app in seapp_contexts), and therefore
prevented apps from reading one another's /proc/pid entries.  However,
levelFrom=app was disabled in Samsung's policy (and likewise in AOSP)
because it posed compatibility problems.  As far as I know, different
levels/categories are only assigned to different KNOX containers on
Samsung devices, and not at all in AOSP currently.

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Wasa Bee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> a paper to be presented this month at Usenix Security "Peeking into Your App
> without Actually Seeing It: UI State Inference and Novel Android Attacks"
> ([0,1]) reads various profcs files to infer a victim app's Activity
> displayed to a user. They can then launch their own Activity (in foreground)
> to impersonate as the victim's app. The procfs files they read are:
>
> /proc/net/tcp6
> /proc/pid/statm
> /proc/pid/stat
> /proc/uid_stat/uid/tcp_snd
>
> where pid is the victim app's pid, not the attacker's app. They have used a
> Galaxy S3, but do not tell the android version. In their Countermeasure
> section, they do not mention SEandroid... so I am left puzzled: have they
> purposely omitted it? Or is SEandroid still vulnerable to it? For example,
> they claim that on the S3, /proc/pid/statm "can be freely accessed without
> any privileges".
>
> Can anyone elaborate? I thought SEandroid DID make procfs no longer readable
> to apps?
>
> [0] http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~alfchen/alfred_sec14.pdf
> [1] https://sites.google.com/site/uistateinferenceattack/demos
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seandroid-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected].
> To get help, send an email containing "help" to
> [email protected].
_______________________________________________
Seandroid-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected].
To get help, send an email containing "help" to 
[email protected].

Reply via email to