linux-kernel - Re: UEFI Secure boot using qemu-kvm

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: <20120627181503.GA7775@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:15:03 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: UEFI Secure boot using qemu-kvm

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 06:34:05PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:

> The purpose of this email is to widen the pool of people who are playing
> with UEFI Secure boot.  The Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board
> have been looking into this because it turns out to be rather difficult
> to lay your hands on real UEFI Secure Boot enabled hardware.

http://tunnelmountain.net/ is the canonical source, but I believe that 
these are now out of stock and waiting for Intel to finish the 
firmware for the replacement.

> The current state is that I've managed to lock down the secure boot
> virtual platform with my own PK and KEK and verified that I can generate
> signed efi binaries that will run on it (and that it will refuse to run
> unsigned efi binaries).  Finally I've demonstrated that I can sign
> elilo.efi (this has to be built specially because of the bug in gnu-efi)
> and have it boot an unsigned linux kernel when the platform is in secure
> mode (I've booted up to an initrd root prompt).

It's probably worth noting that booting unsigned kernels violates the 
expectations of various vendors 
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh848062%28v=vs.85%29.aspx 
would be unnecessary if you're supporting unsigned kernels, for 
example). There's no public cross-vendor guidance on this, but I'm 
trying to get that rectified.

As well as sbsign there's also https://github.com/vathpela/pesign for 
anyone stuck relying on nss rather than openssl for awkward regulatory 
reasons.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/