[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1302282335500.2038@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:48:06 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, jwboyer@...hat.com,
pjones@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
keescook@...omium.org, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Load keys from signed PE binaries
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, David Howells wrote:
> The way we have come up with to get around this is to embed an X.509
> certificate containing the key in a section called ".keylist" in an EFI PE
> binary and then get the binary signed by Microsoft. The key can then be passed
> to the kernel by passing the signed binary:
>
> keyctl padd asymmetric "" {ID of .system_keyring} <pekey.efi.signed
Please let me take this back to square one for a very short moment.
I completely fail to understand how your security model is dealing with
this scenario:
- Mr. Evil Blackhat creates EFI PE binary from "int main() { return 42; }"
(psuedo)code
- Mr. Evil Blackhat puts his own key into .keylist section of this binary
- Mr. Evil Blackhat goes through the $99 process of having this binary
signed by Microsoft. They don't have a slightest reason not to sign it,
as the binary obviously can't be used to run backdoored Windows
- Mr. Evil Blackhat then uses keyctl to process this signed binary
- Mr. Evil Blackhat modprobes i_own_your_ring0.ko which is signed by
his key, and he instantly has his code running in your SecureBoot
environment
Let me formulate my point more clearly -- Microsoft very likely going to
sign hello world EFI PE binary, no matter the contents of .keylist
section, as they don't give a damn about this section, as it has zero
semantic value to them, right?
They sign the binary. By signing the binary, they are *NOT* establishing
cryptographic chain of trust to the key stored in .keylist, but your
patchset seems to imply so.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists