[PATCH 0/2] module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing

[PATCH 0/2] module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing

[Petr Pavlu]

SHA-1 is considered deprecated and insecure due to vulnerabilities that can
lead to hash collisions. Most distributions have already been using SHA-2
for module signing because of this. The default was also changed last year
from SHA-1 to SHA-512 in f3b93547b91a ("module: sign with sha512 instead of
sha1 by default"). This was not reported to cause any issues. Therefore, it
now seems to be a good time to remove SHA-1 support for module signing.

Looking at the configs of several distributions [1], it seems only Android
still uses SHA-1 for module signing.

@Sami, it this correct and is there a specific reason for using SHA-1?

Note: The second patch has a minor conflict with the sign-file update in the
series "lib/crypto: Add ML-DSA signing" [2].

[1] https://oracle.github.io/kconfigs/?config=UTS_RELEASE&config=MODULE_SIG_SHA1&version=be8f5f6abf0b0979be20ee8d9afa2a49a13500b8
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/61637.1762509938@warthog.procyon.org.uk/

Petr Pavlu (2):
  module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing
  sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

 kernel/module/Kconfig |  5 ----
 scripts/sign-file.c   | 66 ++-----------------------------------------
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)


base-commit: 4427259cc7f7571a157fbc9b5011e1ef6fe0a4a8
-- 
2.51.1

[PATCH 1/2] module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing

[Petr Pavlu]

SHA-1 is considered deprecated and insecure due to vulnerabilities that can
lead to hash collisions. Most distributions have already been using SHA-2
for module signing because of this. The default was also changed last year
from SHA-1 to SHA-512 in commit f3b93547b91a ("module: sign with sha512
instead of sha1 by default"). This was not reported to cause any issues.
Therefore, it now seems to be a good time to remove SHA-1 support for
module signing.

Commit 16ab7cb5825f ("crypto: pkcs7 - remove sha1 support") previously
removed support for reading PKCS#7/CMS signed with SHA-1, along with the
ability to use SHA-1 for module signing. This change broke iwd and was
subsequently completely reverted in commit 203a6763ab69 ("Revert "crypto:
pkcs7 - remove sha1 support""). However, dropping only the support for
using SHA-1 for module signing is unrelated and can still be done
separately.

Note that this change only removes support for new modules to be SHA-1
signed, but already signed modules can still be loaded.

Signed-off-by: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
---
 kernel/module/Kconfig | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/module/Kconfig b/kernel/module/Kconfig
index 2a1beebf1d37..be74917802ad 100644
--- a/kernel/module/Kconfig
+++ b/kernel/module/Kconfig
@@ -299,10 +299,6 @@ choice
 	  possible to load a signed module containing the algorithm to check
 	  the signature on that module.
 
-config MODULE_SIG_SHA1
-	bool "SHA-1"
-	select CRYPTO_SHA1
-
 config MODULE_SIG_SHA256
 	bool "SHA-256"
 	select CRYPTO_SHA256
@@ -332,7 +328,6 @@ endchoice
 config MODULE_SIG_HASH
 	string
 	depends on MODULE_SIG || IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG
-	default "sha1" if MODULE_SIG_SHA1
 	default "sha256" if MODULE_SIG_SHA256
 	default "sha384" if MODULE_SIG_SHA384
 	default "sha512" if MODULE_SIG_SHA512
-- 
2.51.1

[PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[Petr Pavlu]

The PKCS#7 code in sign-file allows for signing only with SHA-1. Since
SHA-1 support for module signing has been removed, drop PKCS#7 support in
favor of using only CMS.

The use of the PKCS#7 code is selected by the following:

 #if defined(LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER) || \
 	OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10000000L || \
 	defined(OPENSSL_NO_CMS)
 #define USE_PKCS7
 #endif

Looking at the individual ifdefs:

* LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER: LibreSSL added the CMS implementation from
  OpenSSL in 3.1.0, making the ifdef no longer relevant. This version was
  released on April 8, 2020.

* OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10000000L: OpenSSL 1.0.0 was released on March
  29, 2010. Supporting earlier versions should no longer be necessary. The
  file Documentation/process/changes.rst already states that at least
  version 1.0.0 is required to build the kernel.

* OPENSSL_NO_CMS: OpenSSL can be configured with "no-cms" to disable the
  CMS support. In this case, sign-file will no longer be usable. The CMS
  support is now required.

In practice, since distributions now typically sign modules with SHA-2, for
which sign-file already required CMS support, removing PKCS#7 shouldn't
cause any issues.

Signed-off-by: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
---
 scripts/sign-file.c | 66 +++------------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/sign-file.c b/scripts/sign-file.c
index 7070245edfc1..16f2bf2e1e3c 100644
--- a/scripts/sign-file.c
+++ b/scripts/sign-file.c
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
 #include <arpa/inet.h>
 #include <openssl/opensslv.h>
 #include <openssl/bio.h>
+#include <openssl/cms.h>
 #include <openssl/evp.h>
 #include <openssl/pem.h>
 #include <openssl/err.h>
@@ -39,29 +40,6 @@
 #endif
 #include "ssl-common.h"
 
-/*
- * Use CMS if we have openssl-1.0.0 or newer available - otherwise we have to
- * assume that it's not available and its header file is missing and that we
- * should use PKCS#7 instead.  Switching to the older PKCS#7 format restricts
- * the options we have on specifying the X.509 certificate we want.
- *
- * Further, older versions of OpenSSL don't support manually adding signers to
- * the PKCS#7 message so have to accept that we get a certificate included in
- * the signature message.  Nor do such older versions of OpenSSL support
- * signing with anything other than SHA1 - so we're stuck with that if such is
- * the case.
- */
-#if defined(LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER) || \
-	OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10000000L || \
-	defined(OPENSSL_NO_CMS)
-#define USE_PKCS7
-#endif
-#ifndef USE_PKCS7
-#include <openssl/cms.h>
-#else
-#include <openssl/pkcs7.h>
-#endif
-
 struct module_signature {
 	uint8_t		algo;		/* Public-key crypto algorithm [0] */
 	uint8_t		hash;		/* Digest algorithm [0] */
@@ -228,15 +206,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	bool raw_sig = false;
 	unsigned char buf[4096];
 	unsigned long module_size, sig_size;
-	unsigned int use_signed_attrs;
 	const EVP_MD *digest_algo;
 	EVP_PKEY *private_key;
-#ifndef USE_PKCS7
 	CMS_ContentInfo *cms = NULL;
 	unsigned int use_keyid = 0;
-#else
-	PKCS7 *pkcs7 = NULL;
-#endif
 	X509 *x509;
 	BIO *bd, *bm;
 	int opt, n;
@@ -246,21 +219,13 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 
 	key_pass = getenv("KBUILD_SIGN_PIN");
 
-#ifndef USE_PKCS7
-	use_signed_attrs = CMS_NOATTR;
-#else
-	use_signed_attrs = PKCS7_NOATTR;
-#endif
-
 	do {
 		opt = getopt(argc, argv, "sdpk");
 		switch (opt) {
 		case 's': raw_sig = true; break;
 		case 'p': save_sig = true; break;
 		case 'd': sign_only = true; save_sig = true; break;
-#ifndef USE_PKCS7
 		case 'k': use_keyid = CMS_USE_KEYID; break;
-#endif
 		case -1: break;
 		default: format();
 		}
@@ -289,14 +254,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 		replace_orig = true;
 	}
 
-#ifdef USE_PKCS7
-	if (strcmp(hash_algo, "sha1") != 0) {
-		fprintf(stderr, "sign-file: %s only supports SHA1 signing\n",
-			OPENSSL_VERSION_TEXT);
-		exit(3);
-	}
-#endif
-
 	/* Open the module file */
 	bm = BIO_new_file(module_name, "rb");
 	ERR(!bm, "%s", module_name);
@@ -314,7 +271,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 		digest_algo = EVP_get_digestbyname(hash_algo);
 		ERR(!digest_algo, "EVP_get_digestbyname");
 
-#ifndef USE_PKCS7
 		/* Load the signature message from the digest buffer. */
 		cms = CMS_sign(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
 			       CMS_NOCERTS | CMS_PARTIAL | CMS_BINARY |
@@ -323,19 +279,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 
 		ERR(!CMS_add1_signer(cms, x509, private_key, digest_algo,
 				     CMS_NOCERTS | CMS_BINARY |
-				     CMS_NOSMIMECAP | use_keyid |
-				     use_signed_attrs),
+				     CMS_NOSMIMECAP | CMS_NOATTR |
+				     use_keyid),
 		    "CMS_add1_signer");
 		ERR(CMS_final(cms, bm, NULL, CMS_NOCERTS | CMS_BINARY) != 1,
 		    "CMS_final");
 
-#else
-		pkcs7 = PKCS7_sign(x509, private_key, NULL, bm,
-				   PKCS7_NOCERTS | PKCS7_BINARY |
-				   PKCS7_DETACHED | use_signed_attrs);
-		ERR(!pkcs7, "PKCS7_sign");
-#endif
-
 		if (save_sig) {
 			char *sig_file_name;
 			BIO *b;
@@ -344,13 +293,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 			    "asprintf");
 			b = BIO_new_file(sig_file_name, "wb");
 			ERR(!b, "%s", sig_file_name);
-#ifndef USE_PKCS7
 			ERR(i2d_CMS_bio_stream(b, cms, NULL, 0) != 1,
 			    "%s", sig_file_name);
-#else
-			ERR(i2d_PKCS7_bio(b, pkcs7) != 1,
-			    "%s", sig_file_name);
-#endif
 			BIO_free(b);
 		}
 
@@ -377,11 +321,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	module_size = BIO_number_written(bd);
 
 	if (!raw_sig) {
-#ifndef USE_PKCS7
 		ERR(i2d_CMS_bio_stream(bd, cms, NULL, 0) != 1, "%s", dest_name);
-#else
-		ERR(i2d_PKCS7_bio(bd, pkcs7) != 1, "%s", dest_name);
-#endif
 	} else {
 		BIO *b;
 
-- 
2.51.1

Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing

[Sami Tolvanen]

Hi Petr,

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:49 AM Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com> wrote:
>
> SHA-1 is considered deprecated and insecure due to vulnerabilities that can
> lead to hash collisions. Most distributions have already been using SHA-2
> for module signing because of this. The default was also changed last year
> from SHA-1 to SHA-512 in f3b93547b91a ("module: sign with sha512 instead of
> sha1 by default"). This was not reported to cause any issues. Therefore, it
> now seems to be a good time to remove SHA-1 support for module signing.
>
> Looking at the configs of several distributions [1], it seems only Android
> still uses SHA-1 for module signing.
>
> @Sami, it this correct and is there a specific reason for using SHA-1?

It looks like GKI just uses the defaults here. Overall, Android
doesn't rely on module signing for security, it's only used to
differentiate between module types. Dropping SHA-1 support sounds like
a good idea to me.

> Note: The second patch has a minor conflict with the sign-file update in the
> series "lib/crypto: Add ML-DSA signing" [2].
>
> [1] https://oracle.github.io/kconfigs/?config=UTS_RELEASE&config=MODULE_SIG_SHA1&version=be8f5f6abf0b0979be20ee8d9afa2a49a13500b8
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/61637.1762509938@warthog.procyon.org.uk/
>
> Petr Pavlu (2):
>   module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing
>   sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7
>
>  kernel/module/Kconfig |  5 ----
>  scripts/sign-file.c   | 66 ++-----------------------------------------
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)

For the series:

Reviewed-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>

Sami

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2025-11-11 at 16:48 +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> The PKCS#7 code in sign-file allows for signing only with SHA-1.
> Since SHA-1 support for module signing has been removed, drop PKCS#7
> support in favor of using only CMS.

The change log is a bit alarmist.  CMS really *is* PKCS7 and most
literature will refer to CMS as PKCS7.  What you're really deprecating
is the use of the PKCS7_sign() API which can only produce SHA-1
Signatures ... openssl is fully capable of producing any hash PKCS7
signatures using a different PKCS7_... API set but the CMS_... API is
newer.

The point being the module signature type is still set to PKEY_ID_PKCS7
so it doesn't square with the commit log saying "drop PKCS#7 support".
What you really mean is only use the openssl CMS_... API for producing
PKCS7 signatures.

Regards,

James

Re: [PATCH 1/2] module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing

[Aaron Tomlin]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 04:48:31PM +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> SHA-1 is considered deprecated and insecure due to vulnerabilities that can
> lead to hash collisions. Most distributions have already been using SHA-2
> for module signing because of this. The default was also changed last year
> from SHA-1 to SHA-512 in commit f3b93547b91a ("module: sign with sha512
> instead of sha1 by default"). This was not reported to cause any issues.
> Therefore, it now seems to be a good time to remove SHA-1 support for
> module signing.
> 
> Commit 16ab7cb5825f ("crypto: pkcs7 - remove sha1 support") previously
> removed support for reading PKCS#7/CMS signed with SHA-1, along with the
> ability to use SHA-1 for module signing. This change broke iwd and was
> subsequently completely reverted in commit 203a6763ab69 ("Revert "crypto:
> pkcs7 - remove sha1 support""). However, dropping only the support for
> using SHA-1 for module signing is unrelated and can still be done
> separately.
> 
> Note that this change only removes support for new modules to be SHA-1
> signed, but already signed modules can still be loaded.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
> ---
>  kernel/module/Kconfig | 5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/module/Kconfig b/kernel/module/Kconfig
> index 2a1beebf1d37..be74917802ad 100644
> --- a/kernel/module/Kconfig
> +++ b/kernel/module/Kconfig
> @@ -299,10 +299,6 @@ choice
>  	  possible to load a signed module containing the algorithm to check
>  	  the signature on that module.
>  
> -config MODULE_SIG_SHA1
> -	bool "SHA-1"
> -	select CRYPTO_SHA1
> -
>  config MODULE_SIG_SHA256
>  	bool "SHA-256"
>  	select CRYPTO_SHA256
> @@ -332,7 +328,6 @@ endchoice
>  config MODULE_SIG_HASH
>  	string
>  	depends on MODULE_SIG || IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG
> -	default "sha1" if MODULE_SIG_SHA1
>  	default "sha256" if MODULE_SIG_SHA256
>  	default "sha384" if MODULE_SIG_SHA384
>  	default "sha512" if MODULE_SIG_SHA512
> -- 
> 2.51.1
> 

Agreed.

Reviewed-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>

-- 
Aaron Tomlin

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[Petr Pavlu]

On 11/11/25 5:53 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-11-11 at 16:48 +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote:
>> The PKCS#7 code in sign-file allows for signing only with SHA-1.
>> Since SHA-1 support for module signing has been removed, drop PKCS#7
>> support in favor of using only CMS.
> 
> The change log is a bit alarmist.  CMS really *is* PKCS7 and most
> literature will refer to CMS as PKCS7.  What you're really deprecating
> is the use of the PKCS7_sign() API which can only produce SHA-1
> Signatures ... openssl is fully capable of producing any hash PKCS7
> signatures using a different PKCS7_... API set but the CMS_... API is
> newer.
> 
> The point being the module signature type is still set to PKEY_ID_PKCS7
> so it doesn't square with the commit log saying "drop PKCS#7 support".
> What you really mean is only use the openssl CMS_... API for producing
> PKCS7 signatures.

Ok, I plan to update the description to the following in v2:

sign-file: Use only the OpenSSL CMS API for signing

The USE_PKCS7 code in sign-file utilizes PKCS7_sign(), which allows signing
only with SHA-1. Since SHA-1 support for module signing has been removed,
drop the use of the OpenSSL PKCS7 API by the tool in favor of using only
the newer CMS API.

The use of the PKCS7 API is selected by the following:

 #if defined(LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER) || \
 	OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10000000L || \
 	defined(OPENSSL_NO_CMS)
 #define USE_PKCS7
 #endif

Looking at the individual ifdefs:

* LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER: LibreSSL added the CMS API implementation from
  OpenSSL in 3.1.0, making the ifdef no longer relevant. This version was
  released on April 8, 2020.

* OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10000000L: OpenSSL 1.0.0 was released on March
  29, 2010. Supporting earlier versions should no longer be necessary. The
  file Documentation/process/changes.rst already states that at least
  version 1.0.0 is required to build the kernel.

* OPENSSL_NO_CMS: OpenSSL can be configured with "no-cms" to disable CMS
  support. In this case, sign-file will no longer be usable. The CMS API
  support is now required.

In practice, since distributions now typically sign modules with SHA-2, for
which sign-file already required CMS API support, removing the USE_PKCS7
code shouldn't cause any issues.

-- 
Thanks,
Petr

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2025-11-12 at 14:51 +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> On 11/11/25 5:53 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-11-11 at 16:48 +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> > > The PKCS#7 code in sign-file allows for signing only with SHA-1.
> > > Since SHA-1 support for module signing has been removed, drop
> > > PKCS#7 support in favor of using only CMS.
> > 
> > The change log is a bit alarmist.  CMS really *is* PKCS7 and most
> > literature will refer to CMS as PKCS7.  What you're really
> > deprecating is the use of the PKCS7_sign() API which can only
> > produce SHA-1 Signatures ... openssl is fully capable of producing
> > any hash PKCS7 signatures using a different PKCS7_... API set but
> > the CMS_... API is newer.
> > 
> > The point being the module signature type is still set to
> > PKEY_ID_PKCS7 so it doesn't square with the commit log saying "drop
> > PKCS#7 support". What you really mean is only use the openssl
> > CMS_... API for producing PKCS7 signatures.
> 
> Ok, I plan to update the description to the following in v2:
> 
> sign-file: Use only the OpenSSL CMS API for signing
> 
> The USE_PKCS7 code in sign-file utilizes PKCS7_sign(), which allows
> signing only with SHA-1. Since SHA-1 support for module signing has
> been removed, drop the use of the OpenSSL PKCS7 API by the tool in
> favor of using only the newer CMS API.

Much better, thanks!

Regards,

James

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[David Howells]

Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com> wrote:

> In practice, since distributions now typically sign modules with SHA-2, for
> which sign-file already required CMS API support, removing the USE_PKCS7
> code shouldn't cause any issues.

We're looking at moving to ML-DSA, and the CMS support there is slightly dodgy
at the moment, so we need to hold off a bit on this change.

Patch 1, removing the option to sign with SHA-1 from the kernel is fine, but
doesn't stop things that are signed with SHA-1 from being verified.

David

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2025-11-12 at 15:36 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> > In practice, since distributions now typically sign modules with
> > SHA-2, for which sign-file already required CMS API support,
> > removing the USE_PKCS7 code shouldn't cause any issues.
> 
> We're looking at moving to ML-DSA, and the CMS support there is
> slightly dodgy at the moment, so we need to hold off a bit on this
> change.

How will removing PKCS7_sign, which can only do sha1 signatures affect
that? Is the dodginess that the PKCS7_... API is better than CMS_...
for PQS at the moment?  In which case we could pretty much do a rip and
replace of the CMS_ API if necessary, but that would be a completely
separate patch.

Regards,

James

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[David Howells]

James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:

> > We're looking at moving to ML-DSA, and the CMS support there is
> > slightly dodgy at the moment, so we need to hold off a bit on this
> > change.
> 
> How will removing PKCS7_sign, which can only do sha1 signatures affect
> that? Is the dodginess that the PKCS7_... API is better than CMS_...
> for PQS at the moment?  In which case we could pretty much do a rip and
> replace of the CMS_ API if necessary, but that would be a completely
> separate patch.

OpenSSL-3.5.1's ML-DSA support isn't completely right - in particular
CMS_NOATTR is not currently supported.  I believe there is a fix in the works
there, but I doubt it has made it to all the distributions yet.  I'm only
asking that we hold off a cycle; that will probably suffice.

David

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sign-file: Remove support for signing with PKCS#7

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2025-11-12 at 15:52 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> 
> > > We're looking at moving to ML-DSA, and the CMS support there is
> > > slightly dodgy at the moment, so we need to hold off a bit on
> > > this change.
> > 
> > How will removing PKCS7_sign, which can only do sha1 signatures
> > affect that? Is the dodginess that the PKCS7_... API is better than
> > CMS_... for PQS at the moment?  In which case we could pretty much
> > do a rip and replace of the CMS_ API if necessary, but that would
> > be a completely separate patch.
> 
> OpenSSL-3.5.1's ML-DSA support isn't completely right - in particular
> CMS_NOATTR is not currently supported.  I believe there is a fix in
> the works there, but I doubt it has made it to all the distributions
> yet.

I get that PQC in openssl-3.5 is highly experimental, but that merely
means we tell people not to use it for a while.  However, what I don't
see is how this impacts PKCS7_sign removal.  The CMS API can do a sha1
signature if that's what people want and keeping the PKCS7_sign API
won't prevent anyone with openssl-3.5 installed from trying a PQ
signature. 

>   I'm only asking that we hold off a cycle; that will probably
> suffice.

Right but why?  Is your thought that we'll have to change the CMS_ code
slightly and this might conflict?

Regards,

James

Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing

[Sami Tolvanen]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:48:30 +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> SHA-1 is considered deprecated and insecure due to vulnerabilities that can
> lead to hash collisions. Most distributions have already been using SHA-2
> for module signing because of this. The default was also changed last year
> from SHA-1 to SHA-512 in f3b93547b91a ("module: sign with sha512 instead of
> sha1 by default"). This was not reported to cause any issues. Therefore, it
> now seems to be a good time to remove SHA-1 support for module signing.
> 
> [...]

Applied to modules-next, thanks!

[1/2] module: Remove SHA-1 support for module signing
      commit: 148519a06304af4e6fbb82f20e1a4480e2c1b126
[2/2] sign-file: Use only the OpenSSL CMS API for signing
      commit: d7afd65b4acc775df872af30948dd7c196587169

Best regards,

	Sami