[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55B6988D.4060805@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:46:05 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, jmorris@...ei.org
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, mcgrof@...il.com, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MODSIGN: Use PKCS#7 for module signatures
On 07/27/2015 12:33 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Can you pull this into security/next please? Its aim is twofold: firstly,
> make the module signatures of PKCS#7/CMS format rather than a home-brewed
> format and secondly to pave the way for use of the signing code for
> firmware signatures (to follow later).
With all this stuff applied, will the kernel accept PKCS#7 signatures
that *don't* have authenticated attributes or that are otherwise
cryptographically insecure in that they fail to provide the property
that an attacker can't manipulate a valid signature on one message to
look like a valid signature on a different message?
It looks like fixing that might actually be important if anyone ever
wants to use this for firmware signing.
At least there's no issue with newer kernels needing to accept module
signautures generated by old tools, since the newer kernels won't accept
the underlying modules anyway.
--Andy
--
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