Does anyone know of a docu, guidline or book which explains how to write secure code for bash scripts in general? Strangely I didn't found anything in google and in the forum so far.

If someone here is willing to review a bash script for me (about 600 lines) and help me to make it as secure as possible please send me a PM.

Thanks
Norbert

The tips are same: don't trust user input and double-check everything: that's the way to build a secure program.
Pastebin your script, more people will review it then.
But probably, this topic more suits for "Programming" forum.

A few more ideas. Control the environmental variables. Keep/define only environmental variables you need & clear the rest. Use full paths for commands. Explicitly indicate "builtin" before builtin commands. Handle all errors that might occur. Trap signals. For programs for services, you could root jail the service.

Look at using rbash for your script.

2 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for your hints. I will try to implement them. Here is the script as it is now. (The idea behind it is a Nagios plugin which does some simple security checks.)

Using "printf" instead of "echo" also seems to be a good idea.

Hmm, no one likes to help/review? I would pay for it.

Norbert

Two things: please be patient and do not use money as incentive. It is unnecessary and (while I'm sure you didn't mean it that way) not respectful to those who don't have cash to shell out to get the attention their questions deserve. You're welcome to donate to LQ though.

Talking about the script itself, why not break out the config to /etc/nagios/? Editing conf files should definitely not be done in /usr/lib/nagios/libexec/ but where the FSSTND/LSB/FHS suggests it: /etc/ (or /usr/local/etc/). And why those checks specifically? Aren't they covered by other apps already (GNU/Tiger, Lsat, Samhain)? I'd expect file attribute changes like boot_lilogrub_imflag and file_perms to be checked by a file system integrity checker because using a made for the job tool would more versatile. Besides checks like kernel_coredumps_no, kernel_syncookieprotection_on, kernel_loaded_modules mean changes made by root so that really calls for an application with a wider scope IMHO. If Sudo was not previously installed, in what way would the user be notified of check failure? You're defining the IFS inside each function but it gets only changed in one place AFAIK, is that necessary? You're defining the IFS, which itself is good, but if you do, shouldn't you also check out setting POSIX? (Also see GNU SW and POSIXLY_CORRECT (and POSIX_ME_HARDER)). In 'function kernel_syncookieprotection_on()', if "${PAR_kernel_syncookieprotection_on}" does not exist, what value would cat return and what effect would that have on the script? In 'function file_perms()', what happens to filenames with commas in them if you 'filename=`builtin printf "%s" "$i" | cut -d"," -f1`'? Where you "# remove leading commas", couldn't you use VAL="${VAL/,/}" instead? So many questions, so little time...

1 members found this post helpful.

Well, it was not meant to be disrespectful to anybody, not at all. I wanted to give something back to the one who looks through the code. I have donated to LQ instead.

I did it this way because I didn't want to introduce another configuration file. Also I didn't realise that it is against LSB. I will put the configuration stuff in a separate file then.

Yes they are covered. And for servers where a really high level of security is needed I would install those programs. But I wanted a simple way to do some security checks without additional effort (and knowledge). Think about monitoring thousands of servers and you had to install and configure on all these systems additional daemons and config files. Also you have to integrate each of this software individually into the monitoring.

This points to the same direction. So I will do some research what and how heavy-weight security apps could be integrated into nagios. But at least those checks shouldn't do any harm.

Hmm, I tested it and Nagios just displays (null) which of course is not good. So I will add a verification in the script that sudo is installed and otherwise print a useful error message.

Another hit, I will change this too.

Didn't know of these, will fix this too. What do you mean by GNU SW?

Interesting, the script hangs endlessly, the next thing to fix.

And another one, thanks.

Seems to work. I will see what can be replaced by shell builtins, there are probably more commands which can be simplified.

Thank you for this valuable info. In the meantime I am going to remove these bugs. If you like please let me know other concerns too if there are more...