From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6ABEC4161D for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4FD20685 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="dhF9sb9F" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4E4FD20685 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=HansenPartnership.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729778AbeKUD4E (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:56:04 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:40464 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726314AbeKUD4E (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:56:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512B38EE2C9; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IAx1oehFcc1B; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.68.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 932CA8EE0E2; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:25:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1542734747; bh=UsKG8+AvocsLKzxA9JE3sUkBRkDgvxU4uBh3lbBVHIk=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dhF9sb9FhLRfivUnOxtt7hh5FM0YuRumUZOPoUj56Xx9lqvC06ZzvJfp/SBOt90Go RZQ27jgb4BZLKakSi4c5we1YjXOtbR+k2BDFOIdZRR7mYRbALwr84RL/+DZraMSztM lUQMtcli/8fVx6aJK+H+Rd2CjIN/hKvcyGy/nRfA= Message-ID: <1542734743.2814.31.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: Documenting the proposal for TPM 2.0 security in the face of bus interposer attacks From: James Bottomley To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, monty.wiseman@ge.com, Monty Wiseman , Matthew Garrett Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:25:43 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20181120124116.GA8813@linux.intel.com> References: <1542648844.2910.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181120111049.GC14594@linux.intel.com> <20181120124116.GA8813@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 14:41 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:10:49PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > This is basically rewrite of TPM genie paper with extras. Maybe > > just shorten it to include the proposed architecture and point to > > the TPM Genie paper (which is not in the references at all ATM). > > > > The way I see it the data validation is way more important than > > protecting against physical interposer to be frank. > > > > The attack scenario would require to open the damn device. For > > laptop that would leave physical marks (i.e. evil maid). In a data > > center with armed guards I would wish you good luck accomplishing > > it. It is not anything like sticking a USB stick and run. > > > > We can take a fix into Linux with a clean implementation but it > > needs to be an opt-in feature because not all users will want to > > use it. > > Someone (might have been either Mimi or David Howells but cannot > recall) correctly pointed out at LSS 2018 that you could just as > easily spy and corrupt RAM if you have a time window to perform this > type of attack. Not using the simple plug in on the TPM bus, you can't. The point is basically the difference in the technology: the interposer is a simple, easy to construct, plugin; a RAM spy is a huge JTAG thing that would be hard even to fit into a modern thin laptop, let alone extremely difficult to build. James