linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] IMA: Use the the system trusted keyrings instead of .ima

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: <1459529396.2657.68.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:49:56 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] IMA: Use the the system trusted keyrings
 instead of .ima_mok [ver #3]

On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 15:33 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > The only place where  "KEY_ALLOC_BYPASS_RESTRICTION" is specified is in
> > load_system_certificate_list(), when adding keys to
> > the .builtin_trusted_keys keyring.  There is no other set of keys
> > builtin and added to the IMA keyring.
> 
> Are the keys loaded by integrity_load_x509() required to be validly signed by
> the builtin/secondary keys?  Or is that unnecessary given that they are loaded
> and thus protected through integrity_read_file()?

Loading keys on the IMA keyring is safe, because the certificates must
be signed by a key on the builtin keyring or the secondary keyring, if
it is Kconfig enabled.

Mimi