linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V4 PATCH 00/15] Signature verification of hibernate snapshot

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:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:44:14 -0700
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jiri.kosina@...e.com>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	opensuse-kernel@...nsuse.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Gary Lin <GLin@...e.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	"Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V4 PATCH 00/15] Signature verification of hibernate
 snapshot

On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 08:24 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > > I don't get this. Why is it important that current kernel can't
> > > recreate the signature?
> > 
> > The thread model is an attack on the saved information (i.e. the suspend
> > image) between it being saved by the old kernel and used by the new one.
> > The important point isn't that the new kernel doesn't have access to
> > K_{N-1} it's that no-one does: the key is destroyed as soon as the old
> > kernel terminates however the verification public part P_{N-1} survives.
> 
> James,
> 
> could you please describe the exact scenario you think that the symmetric 
> keys aproach doesn't protect against, while the assymetric key aproach 
> does?
> 
> The crucial points, which I believe make the symmetric key aproach work 
> (and I feel quite embarassed by the fact that I haven't realized this 
> initially when coming up with the assymetric keys aproach) are:
> 
> - the kernel that is performing the actual resumption is trusted in the 
>   secure boot model, i.e. you trust it to perform proper verification
> 
> - potentially malicious userspace (which is what we are protecting against 
>   -- malicious root creating fake hibernation image and issuing reboot) 
>   doesn't have access to the symmetric key

OK, so the scheme is to keep a symmetric key in BS that is passed into
the kernel each time (effectively a secret key) for signing and
validation?

The only two problems I see are

     1. The key isn't generational (any compromise obtains it).  This
        can be fixed by using a set of keys generated on each boot and
        passing in both K_{N-1} and K_N
     2. No external agency other than the next kernel can do the
        validation since the validating key has to be secret

The importance of 2 is just tripwire like detection ... perhaps it
doesn't really matter in a personal computer situation.  It would matter
in an enterprise where images are stored and re-used but until servers
have UEFI secure boot, that's not going to be an issue.

James



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/