[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <522F768F.1000101@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:44:15 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
"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 09/10/2013 12:17 PM, David Lang wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>
> well, not if you are trying to defend against root breaking in to the
> machine.
>
And we have at least some drivers where we even have the firmware in the
Linux kernel tree, and thus aren't opaque blobs at all.
I suspect we'll need, at some point, a way for vendors that aren't
already doing signatures on their firmware in a device-specific way to
do so in a kernel-supported way. The easiest (in terms of getting
vendors to play along, not necessarily technically) might be a PGP
signature (either inline or standalone) and have the public key as part
of the driver?
-hpa
--
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