linux-kernel - RE: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 2/7] tpm: validate TPM 2.0 commands

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]

Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:35:50 +0000
From:   <Peter.Huewe@...ineon.com>
To:     <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>, <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>
CC:     <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        <tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: RE: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 2/7] tpm: validate TPM 2.0 commands

> 1. I've got a TPM that implements vendor-specific command codes. Those
> cannot be send to the TPM anymore, but are rejected with EINVAL.
>
>> 2. When upgrading the firmware on my TPM, it switches to a
>> non-standard communication mode for the upgrade process and does not
>> communicate using TPM2.0 commands during this time. Rejecting
>> non-TPM2.0 commands means upgrading won't be possible anymore.

>How non standard? Is the basic header even there? Are the lengths and status code right?

>This might be an argument to add a 'raw' ioctl or something specifically for this special case.

It follows the regular TPM command syntax and looks something like 1.2 commands.

Peter