lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  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, 7 Dec 2017 15:32:09 +0000
From:   Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     "AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Blunck <jblunck@...radead.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>, Gary Lin <GLin@...e.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel
 lockdown

> I am curious though, is the above notion of having hardware require signed
> firmware an implication brought down by UEFI? If so do you have any pointers
> to where this is stipulated? Or is it just a best practice we assume some
> manufacturers are implementing?

It's a mix of best practice and meeting the so called 'secure boot'
requirements. In the non Linux space exactly the same problems exist in
terms of trusting devices and firmware, building a root of trust and even
more so when producing 'hardened' platforms.

Some stuff isn't - USB devices for example don't get to pee on random
memory so often isn't signed.

Alan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ