linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: don't ignore INTEGRITY

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1558439323.4039.141.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 07:48:43 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...wei.com, mjg59@...gle.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ima: don't ignore INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN EVM status

On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 09:26 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On 5/20/2019 11:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> index 52e6fbb042cc..80e1c233656b 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> @@ -1588,6 +1588,9 @@
> >>   			Format: { "off" | "enforce" | "fix" | "log" }
> >>   			default: "enforce"
> >>   
> >> +	ima_appraise_req_evm
> >> +			[IMA] require EVM for appraisal with file digests.
> > 
> > As much as possible we want to limit the number of new boot command
> > line options as possible.  Is there a reason for not extending
> > "ima_appraise=" with "require-evm" or "enforce-evm"?
> 
> ima-appraise= can be disabled with CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM, which
> probably is done when the system is in production.
> 
> Should I allow to use ima-appraise=require-evm even if
> CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_BOOTPARAM=n?

Yes, that should be fine.  It's making "ima_appraise" stricter.

Mimi