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, 3 May 2019 09:53:49 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <>
To:     Casey Schaufler <>,
        Mimi Zohar <>,
        prakhar srivastava <>
        linux-security-module <>,
        Paul Moore <>,
        John Johansen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec_buffer measure

On 2019/05/03 1:28, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 5/2/2019 8:48 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> [Cc'ing Paul, John, Casey]
>> On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 20:18 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> [Cc'ing LSM mailing list]
>>> On Fri, 2019-04-19 at 17:30 -0700, prakhar srivastava wrote:
>>>> 2) Adding a LSM hook
>>>> We are doing both the command line and kernel version measurement in IMA.
>>>> Can you please elaborate on how this can be used outside of the scenario?
>>>> That will help me come back with a better design and code. I am
>>>> neutral about this.
>>> As I said previously, initially you might want to only measure the
>>> kexec boot command line, but will you ever want to verify or audit log
>>> the boot command line hash? Perhaps LSMs would be interested in the
>>> boot command line. Should this be an LSM hook?
>>   From an LSM perspective, is there any interest in the boot command line?
> I can imagine an LSM that cares about the command line,
> but I don't have interest in it for any work I have in progress.

Since the kernel command line controls which LSMs to enable, I doubt that
an LSM which cares about the command line can detect that the kernel command
line was tampered when the kernel command line was tampered...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists