From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D3AC433EF for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4AB521920 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729404AbfIIKkL (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 06:40:11 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:49930 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726407AbfIIKkL (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 06:40:11 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x89Adc05122591 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 06:40:09 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uwm9fjpcr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 06:40:09 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:40:07 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:40:04 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x89Ae3Ic27263124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:40:03 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6F911C05B; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:40:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B34111C04C; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:40:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.159.93]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:40:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: KEYS-TRUSTED git From: Mimi Zohar To: Sumit Garg , Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jejb@linux.ibm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, Kenneth Goldman , David Safford , Monty Wiseman Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 06:40:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1567952431.4614.140.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19090910-0016-0000-0000-000002A8B94F X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19090910-0017-0000-0000-000033093A22 Message-Id: <1568025601.4614.253.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-09-09_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909090113 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org [Cc'ing Ken, Dave, & Monty] On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 11:57 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 19:50, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Are all "trust" methods equivalent? As new "trust" methods are > > defined, there should be a document describing the trust method, with > > a comparison to the TPM. > > For Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) as a new "trust" method, I > have tried to document it here [1]. Please share your thoughts on this > patch [1] in case I missed something. I would be happy to incorporate > your feedback. Also, can you elaborate on "comparison to the TPM", > what specifics parameters are you looking for documentation? For example, the security properties/guarantees of a hardware TPM are different than a software TPM.  Could we capture that difference in chart form?  As new "trust" methods are added, include that information in the chart and extend the chart with other information, as needed. Mimi > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11065679/ > > -Sumit