linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] Crypto keys and module signing [ver #2]

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]

Message-ID: <4EDCABBD.9020401@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 05 Dec 2011 03:32:13 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	keyrings@...ux-nfs.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com,
	zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com,
	alan.cox@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] Crypto keys and module signing [ver #2]

On 11/29/2011 03:42 PM, David Howells wrote:
> 
> I have provided a couple of subtypes: DSA and RSA.  Both types have signature
> verification facilities available within the kernel, and both can be used for
> module signature verification with any encryption algorithm known by the PGP
> parser, provided the appropriate algorithm is compiled directly into the
> kernel.
> 

Do we really need the complexity of a full OpenPGP parser?  Parsers are
notorious security problems.  Furthermore, using DSA in anything but a
hard legacy application is not something you want to encourage, so why
support DSA?

	-hpa
--
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/