All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <1525963652.3258.4.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 34f054f..74994e8 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -7,23 +7,23 @@ On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 09:25 -0500, David R. Bild wrote:
 > > > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
 > > > > 
 > > > > I don't see any reason to set an unreachable password for the
-> > > > platform hierarchy if the UEFI didn't.  If the desire is to
+> > > > platform hierarchy if the UEFI didn't.  If the desire is to
 > > > > disable the platform hierarchy, then it should be disabled, not
 > > > > have a random password set.
 > > > 
 > > > "Set random password and throw away the key" was my way of
-> > > disabling the platform hierarchy.  Is there a better way of doing
+> > > disabling the platform hierarchy.  Is there a better way of doing
 > > > that?
 > > 
 > > Well, yes, use TPM2_HierarchyControl to set phEnable to CLEAR.
 > 
 > 
-> I'm not sure that will work for us.  Let me give a little more detail
+> I'm not sure that will work for us.  Let me give a little more detail
 > about this card.
 > 
 > The TPM holds access credentials for connecting to the Xaptum
 > network. This approach enables secure, zero-touch provisioning for
-> IoT devices:  Xaptum pre-provisions the TPMs *before* they are
+> IoT devices:  Xaptum pre-provisions the TPMs *before* they are
 > assembled onto a device PCB. The device is shipped directly from
 > factory to end customer. The first time it turns on, the TPM is used
 > to authenticate the Xaptum network. Using a TPM protects the
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ TPM.
 > 
 > We provision the credentials (the DAA secret key, specifically) under
 > the platform hierarchy. The key can be used without platform
-> authorization, but not removed.  If we disable the platform hierarchy
+> authorization, but not removed.  If we disable the platform hierarchy
 > entirely, I think the credentials will no longer be available for
 > use.
 
@@ -53,22 +53,22 @@ disabling it though ...
 > > > > I'd also say this is probably the job of early boot based on
 > > > > policy.
 > > > 
-> > > Agreed.  And since this card has no "early boot", the
+> > > Agreed.  And since this card has no "early boot", the
 > > > driver/kernel need to do it.
 > > 
 > > Early boot means userspace. for a hot pluggable device, this would
 > > probably be something in udev if you follow the no-daemon model and
 > > the daemon could do it if you do follow the daemon model.
 > 
-> Could you expand on the udev approach?  I might not understand enough
+> Could you expand on the udev approach?  I might not understand enough
 > about udev (or the coming TPM resource manager changes) to follow the
 > suggestion.
 > 
-> This seems unsafe to me.  There's a race between a malicious
+> This seems unsafe to me.  There's a race between a malicious
 > userspace program and the daemon to set the platform
-> authorization.  If the malicious program wins, it can reset the TPM,
+> authorization.  If the malicious program wins, it can reset the TPM,
 > removing the credentials, and the device won't be able to connect to
-> the Xaptum network. (This is a liveness concern, not safety.  A
+> the Xaptum network. (This is a liveness concern, not safety.  A
 > denial-of-service attack, essentially.)
 
 OK, I'm getting confused by your threat model.  I don't think knowing
@@ -78,3 +78,7 @@ this: I can execute a TPM2_Clear to regain the platform auth and if you
 disable this, I can't re-own the TPM at all.
 
 James
+---
+To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
+the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
+More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index af7cc9f..7069b23 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -1,14 +1,5 @@
- "ref\020180430125418.31344-1-david.bild@xaptum.com\0"
- "ref\020180504130022.5231-3-david.bild@xaptum.com\0"
- "ref\020180504190638.ikqhdvcqccakzdjd@ziepe.ca\0"
- "ref\0CAAi9uDvyzk1vnQVXkJxRCATy85g4nwMLJjqu6rr1YZn9NV_TYw@mail.gmail.com\0"
- "ref\020180508105515.GB6132@linux.intel.com\0"
- "ref\01525793148.3672.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com\0"
- "ref\0CAAi9uDvgd5+d5fNbSGEeEVvdHLzwid6SqC0BVA3BPXkFWR4ooQ@mail.gmail.com\0"
- "ref\01525793785.3672.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com\0"
- "ref\0CAAi9uDsLmW3K=1UYsmJKOc6hsXqcJXFHyO_scMan5u8d94D9=Q@mail.gmail.com\0"
  "From\0James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] usb: misc: xapea00x: perform platform initialization of TPM\0"
+ "Subject\0[v3,2/2] usb: misc: xapea00x: perform platform initialization of TPM\0"
  "Date\0Thu, 10 May 2018 07:47:32 -0700\0"
  "To\0David R. Bild <david.bild@xaptum.com>\0"
  "Cc\0Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>"
@@ -29,23 +20,23 @@
  "> > > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:\n"
  "> > > > \n"
  "> > > > I don't see any reason to set an unreachable password for the\n"
- "> > > > platform hierarchy if the UEFI didn't.  If the desire is to\n"
+ "> > > > platform hierarchy if the UEFI didn't.\302\240\302\240If the desire is to\n"
  "> > > > disable the platform hierarchy, then it should be disabled, not\n"
  "> > > > have a random password set.\n"
  "> > > \n"
  "> > > \"Set random password and throw away the key\" was my way of\n"
- "> > > disabling the platform hierarchy.  Is there a better way of doing\n"
+ "> > > disabling the platform hierarchy.\302\240\302\240Is there a better way of doing\n"
  "> > > that?\n"
  "> > \n"
  "> > Well, yes, use TPM2_HierarchyControl to set phEnable to CLEAR.\n"
  "> \n"
  "> \n"
- "> I'm not sure that will work for us.  Let me give a little more detail\n"
+ "> I'm not sure that will work for us.\302\240\302\240Let me give a little more detail\n"
  "> about this card.\n"
  "> \n"
  "> The TPM holds access credentials for connecting to the Xaptum\n"
  "> network. This approach enables secure, zero-touch provisioning for\n"
- "> IoT devices:  Xaptum pre-provisions the TPMs *before* they are\n"
+ "> IoT devices: \302\240Xaptum pre-provisions the TPMs *before* they are\n"
  "> assembled onto a device PCB. The device is shipped directly from\n"
  "> factory to end customer. The first time it turns on, the TPM is used\n"
  "> to authenticate the Xaptum network. Using a TPM protects the\n"
@@ -64,7 +55,7 @@
  "> \n"
  "> We provision the credentials (the DAA secret key, specifically) under\n"
  "> the platform hierarchy. The key can be used without platform\n"
- "> authorization, but not removed.  If we disable the platform hierarchy\n"
+ "> authorization, but not removed.\302\240\302\240If we disable the platform hierarchy\n"
  "> entirely, I think the credentials will no longer be available for\n"
  "> use.\n"
  "\n"
@@ -75,22 +66,22 @@
  "> > > > I'd also say this is probably the job of early boot based on\n"
  "> > > > policy.\n"
  "> > > \n"
- "> > > Agreed.  And since this card has no \"early boot\", the\n"
+ "> > > Agreed.\302\240\302\240And since this card has no \"early boot\", the\n"
  "> > > driver/kernel need to do it.\n"
  "> > \n"
  "> > Early boot means userspace. for a hot pluggable device, this would\n"
  "> > probably be something in udev if you follow the no-daemon model and\n"
  "> > the daemon could do it if you do follow the daemon model.\n"
  "> \n"
- "> Could you expand on the udev approach?  I might not understand enough\n"
+ "> Could you expand on the udev approach?\302\240\302\240I might not understand enough\n"
  "> about udev (or the coming TPM resource manager changes) to follow the\n"
  "> suggestion.\n"
  "> \n"
- "> This seems unsafe to me.  There's a race between a malicious\n"
+ "> This seems unsafe to me.\302\240\302\240There's a race between a malicious\n"
  "> userspace program and the daemon to set the platform\n"
- "> authorization.  If the malicious program wins, it can reset the TPM,\n"
+ "> authorization.\302\240\302\240If the malicious program wins, it can reset the TPM,\n"
  "> removing the credentials, and the device won't be able to connect to\n"
- "> the Xaptum network. (This is a liveness concern, not safety.  A\n"
+ "> the Xaptum network. (This is a liveness concern, not safety.\302\240\302\240A\n"
  "> denial-of-service attack, essentially.)\n"
  "\n"
  "OK, I'm getting confused by your threat model.  I don't think knowing\n"
@@ -99,6 +90,10 @@
  "this: I can execute a TPM2_Clear to regain the platform auth and if you\n"
  "disable this, I can't re-own the TPM at all.\n"
  "\n"
- James
+ "James\n"
+ "---\n"
+ "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-usb\" in\n"
+ "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n"
+ More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 
-cf90bdada13eb15bfd8de1c7659b8096cd13af9c9d5605ac2d0a1a27053909f5
+5af490e0476d850551d152bca7fb5a3f2af851dba99630dd8876fa9c0a9d0aa1

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.