linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

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: <20130910185149.GC5559@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:51:49 -0700
From:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	"Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:29:45AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 11:26 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>> That's why modern systems require signed firmware updates.
> >>
> >> Linux doesn't.  Is someone working on adding signature support to the
> >> runtime firmware loader?
> > 
> > It'd be simple to do so, but so far the model appears to be that devices
> > that expect signed firmware enforce that themselves.
> > 
> 
> Most devices do absolutely no verification on the firmware, and simply
> trust the driver.
> 
> So signing firmware is probably critical.

How are you going to "validate" that the firmware is correct, given
that it's just a "blob" living in the linux-firmware tree.  If you sign
it, what is that saying?

I'm with Matthew here, any device that needs/wants this, has their own
built-in checking, nothing the kernel should do here.

Especially given that no other os does this :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/