linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
	petkan@mip-labs.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/20] X.509: Don't treat self-signed keys specially [ver #2]
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:40:20 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1453322420.9549.8.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160119113056.23238.72401.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 11:30 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Trust for a self-signed certificate can normally only be determined by
> whether we obtained it from a trusted location (ie. it was built into the
> kernel at compile time), so there's not really any point in checking it -
> we could verify that the signature is valid, but it doesn't really tell us
> anything if the signature checks out.
> 
> However, there's a bug in the code determining whether a certificate is
> self-signed or not - if they have neither AKID nor SKID then we just assume
> that the cert is self-signed, which may not be true.
> 
> Given this, remove the code that treats self-signed certs specially when it
> comes to evaluating trustability and attempt to evaluate them as ordinary
> signed certificates.  We then expect self-signed certificates to fail the
> trustability check and be marked as untrustworthy in x509_key_preparse().
> 
> Note that there is the possibility of the trustability check on a
> self-signed cert then succeeding.  This is most likely to happen when a
> duplicate of the certificate is already on the trust keyring - in which
> case it shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
> cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Acked-by:  Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com

> ---
> 
>  crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c |   25 ++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> index c4f3c40a4ab9..630c1c331fe1 100644
> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
> @@ -265,6 +265,9 @@ static int x509_validate_trust(struct x509_certificate *cert,
>  	struct key *key;
>  	int ret = 1;
> 
> +	if (!cert->akid_id && !cert->akid_skid)
> +		return 1;
> +
>  	if (!trust_keyring)
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> @@ -322,19 +325,23 @@ static int x509_key_preparse(struct key_preparsed_payload *prep)
>  	cert->pub->algo = pkey_algo[cert->pub->pkey_algo];
>  	cert->pub->id_type = PKEY_ID_X509;
> 
> -	/* Check the signature on the key if it appears to be self-signed */
> -	if ((!cert->akid_skid && !cert->akid_id) ||
> -	    asymmetric_key_id_same(cert->skid, cert->akid_skid) ||
> -	    asymmetric_key_id_same(cert->id, cert->akid_id)) {
> -		ret = x509_check_signature(cert->pub, cert); /* self-signed */
> -		if (ret < 0)
> -			goto error_free_cert;
> -	} else if (!prep->trusted) {
> +	/* See if we can derive the trustability of this certificate.
> +	 *
> +	 * When it comes to self-signed certificates, we cannot evaluate
> +	 * trustedness except by the fact that we obtained it from a trusted
> +	 * location.  So we just rely on x509_validate_trust() failing in this
> +	 * case.
> +	 *
> +	 * Note that there's a possibility of a self-signed cert matching a
> +	 * cert that we have (most likely a duplicate that we already trust) -
> +	 * in which case it will be marked trusted.
> +	 */
> +	if (!prep->trusted) {
>  		ret = x509_validate_trust(cert, get_system_trusted_keyring());
>  		if (ret)
>  			ret = x509_validate_trust(cert, get_ima_mok_keyring());
>  		if (!ret)
> -			prep->trusted = 1;
> +			prep->trusted = true;
>  	}
> 
>  	/* Don't permit addition of blacklisted keys */
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-20 20:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-19 11:30 [RFC PATCH 00/20] KEYS: Restrict additions to 'trusted' keyrings [ver #2] David Howells
2016-01-19 11:30 ` [RFC PATCH 01/20] KEYS: Add an alloc flag to convey the builtinness of a key " David Howells
2016-01-20 18:58   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-03 15:30   ` David Howells
2016-01-19 11:30 ` [RFC PATCH 02/20] KEYS: Add a system blacklist keyring " David Howells
2016-01-20 19:31   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-01-20 20:26   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-03 15:27   ` David Howells
2016-02-08 13:34     ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-08 13:55     ` David Howells
2016-02-08 15:03       ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-08 15:53       ` How to add additional blacklist entries? David Howells
2016-02-08 16:32         ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-08 16:43         ` David Howells
2016-02-08 19:28           ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-09 10:42           ` David Howells
2016-02-10 14:07             ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-08 14:55     ` [RFC PATCH 02/20] KEYS: Add a system blacklist keyring [ver #2] David Howells
2016-02-08 16:39       ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-19 11:48       ` David Howells
2016-02-03 15:29   ` David Howells
2016-01-19 11:30 ` [RFC PATCH 03/20] X.509: Allow X.509 certs to be blacklisted " David Howells
2016-01-20 20:33   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-03 15:46   ` David Howells
2016-02-05 16:16     ` Mimi Zohar
2016-01-19 11:30 ` [RFC PATCH 04/20] X.509: Don't treat self-signed keys specially " David Howells
2016-01-20 20:40   ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 05/20] KEYS: Generalise system_verify_data() to provide access to internal content " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 06/20] PKCS#7: Make trust determination dependent on contents of trust keyring " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 07/20] KEYS: Add a facility to restrict new links into a " David Howells
2016-02-08 11:59   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-29 15:49   ` David Howells
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 08/20] KEYS: Allow authentication data to be stored in an asymmetric key " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 09/20] KEYS: Add identifier pointers to public_key_signature struct " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 10/20] X.509: Retain the key verification data " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 11/20] X.509: Extract signature digest and make self-signed cert checks earlier " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:31 ` [RFC PATCH 12/20] PKCS#7: Make the signature a pointer rather than embedding it " David Howells
2016-02-08 12:00   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-19 11:56   ` David Howells
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 13/20] X.509: Move the trust validation code out to its own file " David Howells
2016-02-08 11:59   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 14/20] KEYS: Generalise x509_request_asymmetric_key() " David Howells
2016-02-08 11:59   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 15/20] KEYS: Move the point of trust determination to __key_link() " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 16/20] KEYS: Remove KEY_FLAG_TRUSTED and KEY_ALLOC_TRUSTED " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 17/20] PKCS#7: Handle blacklisted certificates " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 18/20] IMA: Use the system blacklist keyring " David Howells
2016-02-10 19:12   ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-19 11:58   ` David Howells
2016-02-19 12:16     ` Mimi Zohar
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 19/20] certs: Add a secondary system keyring that can be added to dynamically " David Howells
2016-01-19 11:32 ` [RFC PATCH 20/20] IMA: Replace the .ima_mok keyring with the secondary system keyring " David Howells
2016-01-20 17:24 ` [RFC PATCH 00/20] KEYS: Restrict additions to 'trusted' keyrings " Petko Manolov
2016-01-20 18:57 ` Mimi Zohar
2016-02-03 15:47 ` David Howells
2016-02-03 15:56 ` David Howells

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=1453322420.9549.8.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=petkan@mip-labs.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).