linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18 v3] Signature verification of hibernate snapshot

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: <20130901164637.GA2409@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Sun, 1 Sep 2013 17:46:37 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc:	joeyli <jlee@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	opensuse-kernel@...nsuse.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, JKosina@...e.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Gary Lin <GLin@...e.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18 v3] Signature verification of hibernate
 snapshot

On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >> But if you don't generate fresh keys on every boot, the persistent
> >> keys are mor exposed to other UEFI applications.  Correct me if I'm
> >> wrong, but I don't think UEFI variables are segregated between
> >> different UEFI applications, so if anyone gets a generic UEFI variable
> >> dumper (or setter) signed by the trusted key, this cryptographic
> >> validation of hibernate snapshots is bypassable.
> >
> > If anyone can execute arbitrary code in your UEFI environment then 
> > you've already lost.
> 
> This is not about arbitrary code execution.  The problematic
> applications which conflict with this proposed functionality are not
> necessarily malicious by themselves and even potentially useful.
 
A signed application that permits the modification of arbitrary boot 
services variables *is* malicious. No implementation is designed to be 
safe in that scenario. Why bother with modifying encryption keys when 
you can just modify MOK instead?

-- 
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/