linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/1] ima: digital signature verification using asymmetric keys

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: <1359404149.3906.75.camel@falcor1>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:15:49 -0500
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>,
	dhowells@...hat.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] ima: digital signature verification using asymmetric
 keys

On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:56 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:20:20PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> 
> [..]
> > > Ok. I am hoping that it will be more than the kernel command line we
> > > support. In the sense that for digital signatures one needs to parse
> > > the signature, look at what hash algorithm has been used  and then
> > > collect the hash accordingly. It is little different then IMA requirement
> > > of calculating one pre-determine hash for all files.
> > 
> > Yes... It is obvious. It's coming.
> > But in general, signer should be aware of requirements and limitation
> > of the platform.
> > It is not really a problem...
> 
> One more question. I specified "ima_appraise_tcb" on kernel command line
> and I had an unbootable system. It refused to run "init" as it was not
> labeled/signed. Is there any policy/way where it appraises only signed
> files and does not refuse to open/execute unsigned ones.

The policy defines what needs to be measured/appraised, not the other
way around.  There's nothing preventing you from defining and loading a
different policy, one to your liking, before pivoting root.

thanks,

Mimi

--
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/