From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:50432 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751680AbdJSMAN (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:00:13 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9JBxirG037727 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:00:12 -0400 Received: from e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.111]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2dpu631smy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:00:12 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:00:10 +0100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v9JC06aG21692474 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:00:08 GMT Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id v9JC0ABP000863 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 23:00:11 +1100 Subject: Re: [PATCH] EVM: Add support for portable signature format From: Mimi Zohar To: Dmitry Kasatkin , Matthew Garrett , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" Cc: Mikhail Kurinnoi Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:00:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20171018180111.13021-1-mjg59@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1508414402.4510.117.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 11:02 +0000, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > BTW. > > Just to refresh my mind. What would be the correct order for setting > this signature from package? > On any attr/xattr change, EVM will set HMAC. The system is running without an EVM symmetric key, just an asymmetric key. > What is the value of setting signature after that unless there is a > policy to require signature (immutable)? > In my original patchset portable was also immutable and also > included policy support to require EVM signatures. In Matthew's usecase scenario, only immutable and portable signatures exist. The EVM verification for unsigned files will be INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN. Mimi