linux-kernel - Re: EFI and multiboot2 devlopment work for Xen

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: <5266B3EE.4010901@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:20:46 +0200
From:	Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko 
	<phcoder@...il.com>
To:	Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...il.com>
CC:	The development of GNU GRUB <grub-devel@....org>, keir@....org,
	ian.campbell@...rix.com, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
	stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ross.philipson@...rix.com, jbeulich@...e.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
	richard.l.maliszewski@...el.com, david.woodhouse@...el.com
Subject: Re: EFI and multiboot2 devlopment work for Xen

On 22.10.2013 19:12, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:16:24 +0200
> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko <phcoder@...il.com> пишет:
> 
>> GRUB has generic support for signing kernels/modules/whatsoever using
>> GnuPG signatures. You'd just have to ship xen.sig and kernel.sig. This
>> method doesn't have any controversy associated with EFI stuff but at
>> this particular case does exactly the same thing: verify signature.
>> multiboot2 is mainly memory structure specification so probably how the
>> files are checked is outside of its scope. But it's possible to add
>> specification on how to embed signatures in kernel.
>>
> 
> I'm a bit skeptical here. Given that
> 
> - EFI secure boot will still be needed to handle Windows
> - kernel can be launched directly as EFI application
> - there are other bootloaders with secure boot support
> 
> distributions will likely need to carry on EFI secure boot support. At
> which point it is not clear what advantages second, parallel,
> infrastructure for the sake of single application will bring.
> 
Using PE signatures is possible as I already said which invalidates your
points.
> The most compelling reason would be allowing module loading (which is
> currently disabled by secure boot patches).
> 



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (292 bytes)