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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 23:47:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Abelardo Ricart III <aricart@...nix.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all? On Tue, 19 May 2015, David Howells wrote: > That wouldn't very convenient for building our kernels in our build farm > - we have a lot of machines and all of them would have to be equiped > with the key. Besides, we *want* to discard the private key where > possible as soon as possible because then we can't leak it and we can't > be forced to disclose it. You can still have a dedicated machine that's used just for signing the binaries. That machine wouldn't be connected to the network, would be physically secured, and would sign through a serial line or so. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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