[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69810007161e689ac817099fb1c6df21962963e4.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:03:28 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, sashal@...nel.org,
jmorris@...ei.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] LSM: Measure security module data
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 10:45 -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> In addition to SELINUX_STATE and SELINUX_POLICY, we should also consider
> the proposed LSM_STATE and LSM_POLICY func values but require an "lsm"
> rule conditional.
>
> So the current proposed rules:
>
> measure func=LSM_STATE
> measure func=LSM_POLICY
>
> Would become:
>
> measure func=LSM_STATE lsm=selinux
> measure func=LSM_POLICY lsm=selinux
>
> The following rules would be rejected:
>
> measure func=LSM_STATE
> measure func=LSM_POLICY
> measure func=LSM_STATE lsm=apparmor
> measure func=LSM_POLICY lsm=smack
Kees is cleaning up the firmware code which differentiated between how
firmware was loaded. There will be a single firmware enumeration.
Similarly, the new IMA hook to measure critical state may be placed in
multiple places. Is there really a need from a policy perspective for
differentiating the source of the critical state being measurind? The
data being measured should include some identifying information.
I think moving away from the idea that measuring "critical" data should
be limited to LSMs, will clarify this.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists