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:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:57:39 +0000
From:   David Howells <>
To:     Eric Snowberg <>
        Jarkko Sakkinen <>,,,,,,
        Mimi Zohar <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] certs: Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx entries

Eric Snowberg <> wrote:

> > On Dec 10, 2020, at 2:49 AM, David Howells <> wrote:
> > 
> > Eric Snowberg <> wrote:
> > 
> >> Add support for EFI_CERT_X509_GUID dbx entries. When a EFI_CERT_X509_GUID
> >> is found, it is added as an asymmetrical key to the .blacklist keyring.
> >> Anytime the .platform keyring is used, the keys in the .blacklist keyring
> >> are referenced, if a matching key is found, the key will be rejected.
> > 
> > Ummm...  Why this way and not as a blacklist key which takes up less space?
> > I'm guessing that you're using the key chain matching logic.  We really only
> > need to blacklist the key IDs.
> I implemented it this way so that certs in the dbx would only impact 
> the .platform keyring. I was under the impression we didn’t want to have 
> Secure Boot UEFI db/dbx certs dictate keyring functionality within the kernel
> itself. Meaning if we have a matching dbx cert in any other keyring (builtin,
> secondary, ima, etc.), it would be allowed. If that is not how you’d like to 
> see it done, let me know and I’ll make the change.

I wonder if that is that the right thing to do.  I guess this is a policy
decision and may depend on the particular user.

> > Also, what should happen if a revocation cert rejected by the blacklist?
> I’m not sure I understand the question. How would it be rejected?

The SHA256 of a revocation cert being loaded could match an
already-blacklisted SHA256 sum, either compiled in or already loaded from


Powered by blists - more mailing lists