linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] linux-firmware key arrangement for firmware signing

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: <1432213521.4230.43.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 09:05:21 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
	serge@...lyn.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...nel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <david.woodhouse@...el.com>,
	Joey Lee <jlee@...e.de>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	mricon@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD] linux-firmware key arrangement for firmware signing

On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 23:14 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:41:02AM +0300, Petko Manolov wrote:
> > > I too don't understand this need to sign something that you don't really know 
> > > what it is from some other company, just to send it to a separate device that 
> > > is going to do whatever it wants with it if it is signed or not.
> > 
> > This is not the point.  What you need to know is _where_ the firmware came from, 
> > not _what_ it does once it reach your system.  If you don't care about such 
> > things, just ignore the signature. :)
> 
> Ok, but how do we know "where"?  Who is going to start signing and
> attesting to the validity of all of the firmware images in the
> linux-firmware tree suddenly?  Why is it the kernel's job to attest this
> "where"?  Shouldn't your distro/manufacturer be doing that as part of
> their "put this file on this disk" responsibilities (i.e. the package
> manager?)

Signatures don't provide any guarantees as to code quality or
correctness.   They do provide file integrity and provenance.  In
addition to the license and a Signed-off-by line, having the firmware
provider include a signature of the firmware would be nice.

> What is verifying a firmware image signature in the kernel attesting
> that isn't already known in userspace?

Appraising and enforcing firmware integrity before use.

Mimi

--
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/