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: <1432236773.8004.13.camel@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 19:32:54 +0000
From:	"Woodhouse, David" <david.woodhouse@...el.com>
To:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"seth.forshee@...onical.com" <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
	"zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"mricon@...nel.org" <mricon@...nel.org>,
	"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jlee@...e.de" <jlee@...e.de>, "kyle@...nel.org" <kyle@...nel.org>,
	"gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"james.l.morris@...cle.com" <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	"mcgrof@...e.com" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
	"serge@...lyn.com" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] linux-firmware key arrangement for firmware signing

On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 10:02 -0700, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
> 
> Again, why have a detached signature and not just part of the firmware
> blob?  The device needs to be caring about this, not the kernel.
> 
> Do other operating systems have this type of "feature"?

Yes. Windows effectively does by virtue of the fact that it ships he
firmware *with* the driver and even if it's in a separate file (which
it often isn't), the signed manifest covers it all together.

Look at it this way: If you don't have an IOMMU, then signing modules
is *utterly* pointless unless you also sign firmware. A rogue device
can do *anything*.

We really do want firmware signing for the *OS*, not just for
regulatory issues and other vendor-interest stuff which was Luis's
original focus.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com                              Intel Corporation

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (3437 bytes)