[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel lockdown
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:31 PM, James Bottomley
<> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 14:17 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Measured boot has a great deal of value in the sealing of private
>> material, even in the absence of attestation. The way Microsoft make
>> use of PCR7 is a good example of how signatures make this easier -
>> achieving the same goal with a full measurement of the boot chain
>> instead of relying on signature validation results in significantly
>> more fragility.
> OK, so I agree that if you have sealed something required for boot (and
> have the capability for resealing it on OS upgrade) you can use
> measurements locally. However, I don't believe we have any systems
> today in Linux which can do this (we have theoretical ideas about how
> we might do it with LUKS root keys and one day we might actually have
> the infrastructure to make it viable for a standard laptop).

It's used for TPMTOTP, for instance.

> Absent that, secure boot provides a reasonable measure of security
> which works with today's infrastructure.
> Note: this doesn't mean I necessarily want signatures everywhere (like
> firmware). We can sign elements in blobs that provide the effective
> security without needing more granular signatures.

To be clear - I'm arguing in favour of signatures here. Measured boot
is much easier to work with in their presence.

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-14 23:35    [W:0.116 / U:0.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site