linux-kernel - Re: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel lockdown

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, 02 Nov 2017 18:10:41 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel
 lockdown

On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 22:04 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Only validly signed device firmware may be loaded.
> > 
> > fw_get_filesystem_firmware() calls kernel_read_file_from_path() to
> > read the firmware, which calls into the security hooks. Is there
> > another place that validates the firmware signatures.  I'm not seeing
> > which patch requires firmware to be signed?
> 
> Luis has a set of patches for this.  However, I'm not sure if that's going
> anywhere at the moment.  Possibly I should remove this from the manpage for
> the moment.

Or reflect that IMA-appraisal, if enabled, will enforce firmware being
validly signed.

Mimi