From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] ima/evm: signature verification support using asymmetric keys Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:45:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1358365541.4593.190.camel@falcor1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Kasatkin Return-path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:60364 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751557Ab3APTqB (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:46:01 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:46:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 12:34 +0200, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > Asymmetric keys were introduced in linux-3.7 to verify the signature on signed > kernel modules. The asymmetric keys infrastructure abstracts the signature > verification from the crypto details. This patch adds IMA/EVM signature > verification using asymmetric keys. Support for additional signature > verification methods can now be delegated to the asymmetric key infrastructure. > > Although the module signature header and the IMA/EVM signature header could > use the same header format, to minimize the signature length and save space > in the extended attribute, the IMA/EVM header format is different than the > module signature header. The main difference is that the key identifier is > a sha1[12 - 19] hash of the key modulus and exponent and similar to the current > implementation. The only purpose is to identify corresponding key in the kernel > keyring. ima-evm-utils was updated to support the new signature format. David, are you ok with how support for asymmetric keys is being added to EVM/IMA-appraisal for verifying signatures? Any comments? thanks, Mimi