linux-kernel - Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?

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, 21 May 2015 16:59:29 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> Alternatively, we could eventually support some way of verifying a
> hash or signature on each tuple (path, mode, contents)

Since the initramfs is composed on the system being installed according to the
hardware on that machine, you have to expose this list to meddling during
composition whether you sign it (you need a private key) or hash it (what do
you do with the hash once you've produced it?).

David
--
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/