[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190108234246.GA22310@amd>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 00:42:47 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: joeyli <jlee@...e.com>, "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Ryan Chen <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v2][RFC] Encryption and authentication for hibernate
snapshot image
Hi!
> >> Please explain your security goals.
> >
> > My security goals:
> >
> > - Encrypt and authicate hibernate snapshot image in kernel space. Userspace
> > can only touch an encrypted and signed snapshot image.
>
> Signed?
>
> I’m not entirely convinced that the keyring mechanism is what you
> want. ISTM that there are two goals here:
>
> a) Encryption: it should be as hard as can reasonably be arranged to
> extract secrets from a hibernation image.
>
> b) Authentication part 1: it should not be possible for someone in
> possession of a turned-off machine to tamper with the hibernation
> image such that the image, when booted, will leak its secrets. This
> should protect against attackers who don’t know the encryption key.
>
> c) Authentication part 2: it should be to verify, to the extent
> practical, that the image came from the same machine and was really
> created using hibernation. Or maybe by the same user.
So... this looks like "security goals" I was asking in the first
place. Thanks!
Could we get something like that (with your real goals?) in the next
version of the patch?
> As far as I can tell, there is only one reason that any of this needs
> to be in the kernel: if it’s all in user code, then we lose “lockdown”
> protection against compromised user code on a secure boot system. Is
> that, in fact, true?
And this is what I'd really like answer to. Because... I'd really like
this to be in userspace if it does not provide additional security
guarantees.
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists