linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/13] Clavis LSM

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <172F304A-B719-4FBB-8FF5-23B6961A2DCE@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:40:35 +0000
From: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David
 Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        "open
 list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        David
 Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "herbert@...dor.apana.org.au"
	<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E.
 Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        Dmitry
 Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        Mickaël Salaün
	<mic@...ikod.net>,
        "casey@...aufler-ca.com" <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Stefan
 Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "ebiggers@...nel.org" <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        open list
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "keyrings@...r.kernel.org"
	<keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/13] Clavis LSM



> On Mar 20, 2025, at 4:40 PM, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2025-03-20 at 16:24 +0000, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>> Having lockdown enforcement has always been 
>> a requirement to get a shim signed by Microsoft.
> 
> This is factually incorrect.  Microsoft transferred shim signing to an
> independent process run by a group of open source maintainers a while
> ago:

Yes, the shim-review process is understood.  I'm not sure how my sentence 
is factually incorrect though. Unless you are saying Microsoft no longer 
maintains the private key.  Hopefully that is not the case, since the public 
key ships on just about every single PC built.