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:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:26:10 +0200
From:   Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
CC:     linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kari Hiitola <kari@...aani.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>
Subject: Re: Fixing CVE-2017-15361



Am 25. Oktober 2017 20:53:49 MESZ schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>:
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 07:17:17AM -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
>> <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > I'm implementing a fix for CVE-2017-15361 that simply blacklists
>> > vulnerable FW versions. I think this is the only responsible action
>from
>> > my side that I can do.
>> 
>> I'm not sure this is ideal - do Infineon have any Linux tooling for
>> performing firmware updates, and if so will that continue working if
>> the device is blacklisted? It's also a poor user experience to have
>> systems using TPM-backed disk encryption keys suddenly rendered
>> unbootable, and making it as easy as possible for people to do an
>> upgrade and then re-seal secrets with new keys feels like the correct
>> approach.
>
>I talked today with Alexander Steffen in the KS unconference and we
>concluded that this would be a terrible idea.
>
>Alexander stated the following things about FW updates (Alexander,
>please correct me if I state something incorrectly or if you have
>something to add):
>
>* FW update can be constructed either in a way that the keys in the
>  NVRAM are not cleared or in a way that they are cleared.
>* FW update cannot be directly applied to the TPM but must come as
>  part of the firmware update from the vendor.
>
>I proposed the following as an alternative:
>
>* Print a message to the klog (which log level would be appropriate?).
Info?
Maybe warn, definitely not err

>* Possibly sleep for few seconds. Is this a good idea?
Helps how?

>
>While writing this email yet another alternative popped into my mind:
>what if we allow only in-kernel use but disallow the use of /dev/tpm0?
>You could still use trusted keys.
>
No, same terrible idea since you block the upgrade path.
Upgrade tools work from userspace via the kernel driver. 
So /dev/tpm0 is necessary.

>Here are all the ideas that I have and I am open for better
>alternatives.
>
>/Jarkko

-- 
Sent from my mobile

Powered by blists - more mailing lists