From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v2][RFC] Encryption and authentication for hibernate snapshot image Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 00:42:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20190108234246.GA22310@amd> References: <20190103143227.9138-1-jlee@suse.com> <20190106181026.GA15256@amd> <20190107173743.GC4210@linux-l9pv.suse> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: joeyli , "Lee, Chun-Yi" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , LKML , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Chen Yu , Oliver Neukum , Ryan Chen , David Howells , Giovanni Gherdovich , Randy Dunlap , Jann Horn List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > >> Please explain your security goals. > > > > My security goals: > > > > - Encrypt and authicate hibernate snapshot image in kernel space. Users= pace > > can only touch an encrypted and signed snapshot image. >=20 > Signed? >=20 > I=E2=80=99m not entirely convinced that the keyring mechanism is what you > want. ISTM that there are two goals here: >=20 > a) Encryption: it should be as hard as can reasonably be arranged to > extract secrets from a hibernation image. >=20 > b) Authentication part 1: it should not be possible for someone in > possession of a turned-off machine to tamper with the hibernation > image such that the image, when booted, will leak its secrets. This > should protect against attackers who don=E2=80=99t know the encryption ke= y. >=20 > c) Authentication part 2: it should be to verify, to the extent > practical, that the image came from the same machine and was really > created using hibernation. Or maybe by the same user. So... this looks like "security goals" I was asking in the first place. Thanks! Could we get something like that (with your real goals?) in the next version of the patch? > As far as I can tell, there is only one reason that any of this needs > to be in the kernel: if it=E2=80=99s all in user code, then we lose =E2= =80=9Clockdown=E2=80=9D > protection against compromised user code on a secure boot system. Is > that, in fact, true? And this is what I'd really like answer to. Because... I'd really like this to be in userspace if it does not provide additional security guarantees. Thanks, Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlw1NXYACgkQMOfwapXb+vK+qACeNG5cXLr+M4bSX4Me0sXYysM8 CIwAnAoNvfPDRrv/MT3jN/y0LdEbo0lu =l/CK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--