From: Ken Goldman <kgold@linux.ibm.com>
To: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>,
Sush Shringarputale <sushring@linux.microsoft.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.ibm.com,
peterhuewe@gmx.de, jarkko@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca,
bhe@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, dyoung@redhat.com,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, jmorris@namei.org,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
serge@hallyn.com
Cc: code@tyhicks.com, nramas@linux.microsoft.com,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] IMA Log Snapshotting Design Proposal - unseal
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:13:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba7d9550-03f0-9fcd-386c-382ceedbe72f@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d2b1df7-aabd-8a18-a564-24399b53f3d2@linux.microsoft.com>
On 9/1/2023 5:22 PM, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
>
>
> On 8/30/23 12:12, Ken Goldman wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 3:12 PM, Sush Shringarputale wrote:
>>
>>> For remote attestation to work, the service will need to know how to
>>> validate the snapshot_aggregate entry in the IMA log. It will have
>>> to read the PCR values present in the template data of
>>> snapshot_aggregate event in the latest IMA log, and ensure that the
>>> PCR quotes align with the contents of the past UM_snapshot_file(s).
>>> This will re-establish the chain of trust needed for the device to
>>> pass remote attestation. This will also maintain the ability of the
>>> remote-attestation-service to seal the secrets, if the client-server
>>> use TPM unseal mechanism to attest the state of the device.
>>
>> I think that seal/unseal to IMA PCRs is futile. Since boot is
>> multi-threaded, the IMA PCR is unpredictable even when valid.
>
> True. But here we are talking about seal/unseal post boot when the
> device is in a stable state, and there are relatively less number of
> events extending IMA PCR. The value of the actual IMA PCR doesn't matter
> in this context as long as it stays the same between seal-unseal window.
Does 'relatively less number of events' really matter? Even if there
are only two, if the order is unpredictable, unseal fails.
>
> If it changes between that window, the clients typically retry by
> sending the request to the service with a new stable PCR.
Does a retry help? Once the PCR has been extended to the wrong value, it
can never get back to the correct value without a reboot.
>
> Seal-unseal is supported by TPM spec, and is used widely. So we had to
> ensure that our proposed design wouldn't regress this existing
> functionality.
It works in the pre-OS environment, where the firmware specification
mandates that the PCR values are repeatable. Once you're post-OS,
multi-threaded, an unseal that includes PCR 10 is infeasible.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-06 20:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-01 19:12 [RFC] IMA Log Snapshotting Design Proposal Sush Shringarputale
2023-08-01 21:21 ` James Bottomley
2023-08-07 22:49 ` Stefan Berger
2023-08-08 12:35 ` James Bottomley
2023-08-08 13:31 ` Stefan Berger
2023-08-08 18:26 ` James Bottomley
2023-08-08 20:09 ` Stefan Berger
2023-08-08 21:41 ` James Bottomley
2023-08-10 4:43 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-10 11:43 ` James Bottomley
2023-08-11 15:48 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-10 4:31 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-10 4:29 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-10 1:23 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-10 1:15 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-10 14:12 ` Stefan Berger
2023-08-11 15:57 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-11 18:16 ` Stefan Berger
2023-08-10 1:03 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-08-11 13:14 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-14 21:42 ` Sush Shringarputale
2023-08-14 22:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-21 22:05 ` Sush Shringarputale
2023-08-21 23:07 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-29 19:34 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-29 21:03 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-29 21:30 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-29 21:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-29 23:15 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-30 20:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-30 20:47 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-30 21:50 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-30 22:21 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-30 22:23 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-30 23:06 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-30 23:22 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-31 14:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-31 14:43 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-31 16:46 ` Dr. Greg
2023-08-31 17:56 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-30 18:06 ` [RFC] IMA Log Snapshotting Design Proposal - network bandwidth Ken Goldman
2023-09-01 21:20 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-09-06 20:20 ` Ken Goldman
2023-09-07 20:40 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-30 18:12 ` [RFC] IMA Log Snapshotting Design Proposal - aggregate Ken Goldman
2023-09-01 22:06 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-09-06 20:49 ` Ken Goldman
2023-09-07 21:02 ` Paul Moore
2023-08-30 19:12 ` [RFC] IMA Log Snapshotting Design Proposal - unseal Ken Goldman
2023-08-31 15:54 ` Dr. Greg
2023-09-01 21:22 ` Tushar Sugandhi
2023-09-06 20:13 ` Ken Goldman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ba7d9550-03f0-9fcd-386c-382ceedbe72f@linux.ibm.com \
--to=kgold@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=code@tyhicks.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=sushring@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox