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: <CAGXu5j+3oKC-tQe8z43bG8wTpURD4FFCi+A1t9mSN_Bfzh8e8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:55:49 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	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>,
	"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 11:51 AM, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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?

In theory these blobs are traceable to a manufacturer. It's not really
an indication that it's "safe" more than it's an indication that it
hasn't been changed. But I haven't chased this very hard yet because
of below...

> 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 :)

Yeah, it's impossible to handle since the way components do firmware
updates is frequently exposed to userspace anyway. 3G modems that do
firmware updates over the AT-command set, harddrives doing firmware
updates over SCSI-generic commands, etc. Creating this barrier in the
kernel is not a good solution; the component makers need to be doing
the enforcement. :(

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/