aCp
asked on
Modifying data before sending them
Hello,
I'm currently working on a project which requires me to modify data an application wants to send over the network. My goal is to do this in a transparent way, therefore no modification whatsoever should take place in the application. My solution would normally be in the form of a module for the kernel (2.6.x series). My project is actually an extension of someone else's work which apparently uses the Linux Security Modules, the network hooks. From what I read, these modules are only used for access control policies enforcement, so the only control I have over the sockets is allowing or refusing different actions, such as creation, connection, transmission, etc. Therefore, it doesn't seem possible to alter the data that the application wants to send.
For the moment, I only see one alternative, modifying the sockets themselves. Although my implementation has only a "show it's feasible" purpose, I would prefer a "cleaner" way to deal with this. Moreover, it would be much better if I could actually extend the previous work that has been undertaken by another person, instead of just starting from scratch.
As I said before, my goal is to make this completely transparent for the applications.
Do you have any suggestion on that matter ? Any good reference (book, article, website) would be greatly appreciated too. Don't hesitate to ask for further information if you find it necessary.
Thanks in advance for your time.
acp
I'm currently working on a project which requires me to modify data an application wants to send over the network. My goal is to do this in a transparent way, therefore no modification whatsoever should take place in the application. My solution would normally be in the form of a module for the kernel (2.6.x series). My project is actually an extension of someone else's work which apparently uses the Linux Security Modules, the network hooks. From what I read, these modules are only used for access control policies enforcement, so the only control I have over the sockets is allowing or refusing different actions, such as creation, connection, transmission, etc. Therefore, it doesn't seem possible to alter the data that the application wants to send.
For the moment, I only see one alternative, modifying the sockets themselves. Although my implementation has only a "show it's feasible" purpose, I would prefer a "cleaner" way to deal with this. Moreover, it would be much better if I could actually extend the previous work that has been undertaken by another person, instead of just starting from scratch.
As I said before, my goal is to make this completely transparent for the applications.
Do you have any suggestion on that matter ? Any good reference (book, article, website) would be greatly appreciated too. Don't hesitate to ask for further information if you find it necessary.
Thanks in advance for your time.
acp
ASKER
Hi there,
by developing a library I fail to complete one of my goals, which is to avoid modification of all applications. A module is indeed not possible for the moment, at least I think it is, except if the security hooks of LSM allow such a task.
Therefore it seems more suitable to modify the socket code directly in the kernel.
by developing a library I fail to complete one of my goals, which is to avoid modification of all applications. A module is indeed not possible for the moment, at least I think it is, except if the security hooks of LSM allow such a task.
Therefore it seems more suitable to modify the socket code directly in the kernel.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
By the way, I forgot something. You talked about ethereal (called wireshark now btw :), but the problem is that (as iptables actually), it intervenes only before actual emission of the data, so between data and physical layers if I'm not mistaken. Since I want to alter data (let's say I want to add something to the sent data), doing that after the transport or network layer would considerably make my life harder (just consider fragmentation for instance)...
This is why I strongly believe that the whole thing should be between application and transport layer.
This is why I strongly believe that the whole thing should be between application and transport layer.
ASKER
Oh ok, now I see what you mean. My knowledge is somewhat restricted in that area, so I have two questions regarding this approach :
1) Do all applications that are susceptible to send data over a network rely on libc for doing so ? From what I know so far, they might rely on some other library, but the latter can be finally using libc. Am I right in this last assumption ?
2) Libraries are not my forte, but for having played a bit with some a couple of years ago, I recall that a modification in the core of a function (let's take send as an example) could lead to a change in the ABI. Therefore, recompilation of programs linked to this library is needed. Would this be the case here ? I mean, how much "freedom" do I have in modifying the send function without needing to recompile application using it ?
Last but not least, although I'm interested in taking this alternative further, I forgot to mention that there is a external constraint that will most probably push me to work in the kernel. However, the feasability of such a solution is very interesting. Who knows, maybe it might be even better than dealing with the kernel...
Thanks for baring with me on this one...
acp
1) Do all applications that are susceptible to send data over a network rely on libc for doing so ? From what I know so far, they might rely on some other library, but the latter can be finally using libc. Am I right in this last assumption ?
2) Libraries are not my forte, but for having played a bit with some a couple of years ago, I recall that a modification in the core of a function (let's take send as an example) could lead to a change in the ABI. Therefore, recompilation of programs linked to this library is needed. Would this be the case here ? I mean, how much "freedom" do I have in modifying the send function without needing to recompile application using it ?
Last but not least, although I'm interested in taking this alternative further, I forgot to mention that there is a external constraint that will most probably push me to work in the kernel. However, the feasability of such a solution is very interesting. Who knows, maybe it might be even better than dealing with the kernel...
Thanks for baring with me on this one...
acp
ASKER
No other opinions/advices ?
What about sources of information on that field ?
Thanks,
aCp
What about sources of information on that field ?
Thanks,
aCp
you can change this way the data, making a module is maybe not possible, since you must put the module between others modules, abnd maybe some modules can not make modules (they must be in the kernel). Making a library for sending and receiving would bethe cleanest way.