linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:18:44 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:49:34 -0400, Matthew Garrett said:

> So, this is my final attempt at providing the functionality I'm interested
> in without inherently tying it to Secure Boot. There's strong parallels
> between the functionality that I'm interested in and the BSD securelevel
> interface, so here's a trivial implementation.

Although all the individual patches look like sane and reasonable things
to do, I'm not at all convinced that sticking them all under control of one
flag is really the right way to do it.  In particular, there probably needs
to be some re-thinking of the kexec, signed-module, and secure-boot stuff,
as it's still a moving target.

> So, this is my final attempt at providing the functionality I'm interested
> in without inherently tying it to Secure Boot.

You may as well bite the bullet on this one, and tie it together.  Without
Secure Boot, by the time your code runs it's already too late.  That's the
whole point of Secure Boot, after all.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped