From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
To: "gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"jmorris@namei.org" <jmorris@namei.org>,
"keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"jwboyer@fedoraproject.org" <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Trusted kernel patchset for Secure Boot lockdown
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:56:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394834193.1286.11.camel@x230> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140314214806.54a3d031@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 2016 bytes --]
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 21:48 +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> In your particularly implementation maybe you've got a weak setup where
> you don't measure down to your initrd. That's a *flaw* in your
> implementation. Don't inflict your limitations on others or on the
> future. EFI is only one (and not a very strong one at that) implementation
> of a 'secure' boot chain. A lot of other systems can not only propogate
> measurement and security assertions into their initrd they can propogate
> them into their rootfs (yes upgrades are .. exciting, but these kinds of
> users will live with that pain).
Signed userspace is not a requirement, and therefore any solution that
relies on a signed initrd is inadequate. There are use cases that
require verification of the initrd and other levels. This isn't one of
them.
> Even in EFI you can make your kernel or loader check the initrd signature
> and the rootfs signature if you want.
Except the initramfs gets built at kernel install time.
> > The fact that you keep saying measured really does make me suspect that
> > you misunderstand the problem. There's no measurement involved, there's
> > simply an assertion that the firmware (which you're forced to trust)
> > chose, via some policy you may be unaware of, to trust the booted
> > kernel.
>
> You are currently using some of those interfaces for measuring to produce
> a notionally 'trusted' initial loaded environment.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong but your starting point is "I have a chain of
> measurement as far as the kernel I load". Without that I can just go into
> grub and 0wn you.
In my use case. But not all implementations will be measuring things -
they can assert that the kernel is trustworthy through some other
mechanism. This genuinely is about trust, not measurement.
--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
ÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±þG«éÿ{ayº\x1dÊÚë,j\a¢f£¢·hïêÿêçz_è®\x03(éÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?¨èÚ&£ø§~á¶iOæ¬z·vØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?I¥
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-14 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-26 20:11 Trusted kernel patchset for Secure Boot lockdown Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 01/12] Add support for indicating that the booted kernel is externally trusted Matthew Garrett
2014-02-27 19:02 ` Kees Cook
2014-03-31 14:49 ` Pavel Machek
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 02/12] Enforce module signatures when trusted kernel is enabled Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 03/12] PCI: Lock down BAR access when trusted_kernel is true Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 04/12] x86: Lock down IO port " Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 05/12] Restrict /dev/mem and /dev/kmem " Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 06/12] acpi: Limit access to custom_method if " Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 07/12] acpi: Ignore acpi_rsdp kernel parameter when " Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 08/12] kexec: Disable at runtime if " Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 09/12] uswsusp: Disable when " Matthew Garrett
2014-03-31 14:49 ` Pavel Machek
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 10/12] x86: Restrict MSR access " Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 11/12] asus-wmi: Restrict debugfs interface " Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 20:11 ` [PATCH 12/12] Add option to automatically set trusted_kernel when in Secure Boot mode Matthew Garrett
2014-02-26 22:41 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-26 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-02-26 22:48 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-02-27 18:48 ` Kees Cook
2014-02-26 21:11 ` Trusted kernel patchset for Secure Boot lockdown Kees Cook
2014-02-26 22:21 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-19 17:42 ` Florian Weimer
2014-02-27 18:04 ` Josh Boyer
2014-02-27 19:07 ` Greg KH
2014-02-27 19:11 ` Josh Boyer
2014-02-28 12:50 ` Josh Boyer
2014-02-28 3:03 ` James Morris
2014-02-28 4:52 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-13 5:01 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-13 6:22 ` Kees Cook
2014-03-13 9:33 ` James Morris
2014-03-13 10:12 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-13 15:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-13 15:59 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-13 21:24 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-13 21:28 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-13 21:32 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-13 21:30 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-13 23:21 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 1:57 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 12:22 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 12:51 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 15:23 ` Kees Cook
2014-03-14 15:46 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 15:54 ` Kees Cook
2014-03-14 15:58 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 16:28 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 17:06 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 18:11 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 19:24 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 20:37 ` David Lang
2014-03-14 20:43 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 21:58 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 22:04 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 21:48 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 21:56 ` Matthew Garrett [this message]
2014-03-14 22:08 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 22:15 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-14 22:31 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-14 22:52 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-19 19:50 ` Kees Cook
2014-03-14 23:18 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-15 0:15 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-19 17:49 ` Florian Weimer
2014-03-19 20:16 ` Kees Cook
2014-03-20 14:47 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-20 14:55 ` tytso
2014-03-20 17:12 ` Matthew Garrett
2014-03-20 18:13 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-13 21:26 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-03-13 21:31 ` Matthew Garrett
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=1394834193.1286.11.camel@x230 \
--to=matthew.garrett@nebula.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jwboyer@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
/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