linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images

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 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]

Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:51:47 +0000
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
To:     "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
        "Mok, Tze Siong" <tze.siong.mok@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark
 images

On 17/02/17 08:23, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> And to have UEFI expand
> it capsule support and take in signed binary would be a more secured way.
> So, influencing UEFI community to have such support would be the right
> move throughout the discussion. That is my summary.

CSH stands for "Clanton Secure Header" - Clanton being the internal
code-name for Quark X1000 prior to release.

There is no chance the UEFI standard (which can be used on ARM and
potentially other architectures) will accept a SoC specific
route-of-trust prepended header.

Sure some kind of binary signed headers might become part of the
standard eventually but, definitely _not_ a CSH.

The fact is CSH exists in the real-world and a UEFI firmware supports
accepting the CSH/UEFI-capsule pair for updating itself.

I think a far more practical solution is to accommodate the defacto
implementation (the only ? current implementation). To me it defies
reason to have Quark X1000 be the only system (that I know of) capable
of doing a capsule update - have capsule code in the kernel - but _not_
support the header prepended to that capsule that the Quark
firmware/bootrom require.

Right now the capsule code is dead code on Quark x1000. Let's do the
right thing and make it usable. I fully support having a
separate/parallel conversation with the UEFI body but, I'd be amazed if
the "Clanton Secure Header" made it into the standard...

-- 
bod