[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVwxZD=f38aK1EpHLjv9fnzMsTiuHbHDRqECpFkaMKdqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:15:45 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Luis Rodriguez <mcgrof@...il.com>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MODSIGN: Use PKCS#7 for module signatures
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:43 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Hmmm... That's easy enough to fix (see below). However, will that cause
> kexec problems, I wonder? Does mscode require authattrs?
>
Seems sensible.
How would it cause kexec problems? I can only see it being a problem
if Authenticode can't handle authattrs, right? There shouldn't be any
legacy PKCS7 kexec images whatsoever, because no existing kernel will
boot them or generate them.
--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