From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
Abelardo Ricart III <aricart@memnix.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
keyrings@linux-nfs.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:01:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWjygX_SsQxD25wfG9ttY=DjuZrDRPrhcLawOpgCXYY4A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5348.1432061085@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:50 AM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>> No, in the hash tree variant, it really is 32 bytes. No one ever
>> needs the full list once the build is done.
>
> Yes, you do. You have to check the hash on the hash list or you can't trust
> it.
>
No, you don't :) See below.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:44 AM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>> The actual runtime code needed to implement a hash tree solution is
>> maybe twenty lines. The bzImage will be smaller,
>
> But the initramfs image will be bigger because it will have to carry the
> entire module hash list just in case any particular module needs to get loaded
> from the initramfs. You have to carry the entire hash set so that you can
> hash it and compare against the one hash in the vmlinux file.
>
No. Here's one way it could work:
Suppose you have a depth-k tree (i.e. up to 2^k modules). We'll
compute a 32-byte value Tree(d, i) for each d from 0 to k and each i
from 0 to 2^d-1. First you assign each module an index starting at
zero (with the maximum index less than 2^k). Then you hash each
module.
To generate the leaves (i.e. nodes at depth k), you compute, for each
i, Tree(k, i) = H(k, i, H(module payload)). For leaves that don't
correspond to modules, you use some placeholder.
For the ith node at lower depth, compute Tree(d, i) = H(k-1, i,
Tree(d+1, 2*i), Tree(d+1, 2*i+1)).
The proof associated with module i is Tree(k, i^1), Tree(k-1,
(i>>1)^1), Tree(k-2, (i>>2)^1), etc, up through depth 1. Tree(0, 0)
is built into the kernel.
Variants of this scheme are possible. Don't emulate Amazon or
Bittorrent here, though -- they both managed to screw up the crypto.
> And that doesn't include the issue of hashing the firmware blobs you might
> need.
As before, that's true. To verify firmware, either you need to hash
it, use a termporary signing key, or use a long-term signing key.
Choose your poison. I still prefer a hash over a temporary signing
key.
>
>> With your proposal, I need to trust that whoever built the actual
>> running kernel image really did throw away the key. If they didn't,
>> then under whatever threat model requires that I enable module
>> verification, I'm screwed -- the bad guy has the private key.
>
> Each private key is used for one single kernel, so if they steal one, you can
> blacklist it if you have the capability (eg. UEFI) and change your kernel.
>
How do you know it was stolen?
--Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-19 19:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-18 16:04 Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all? David Howells
2015-05-18 16:19 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-18 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-18 16:55 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-18 16:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-19 0:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 7:42 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-19 17:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-19 17:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 18:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-19 18:08 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-19 18:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 18:38 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-19 18:49 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 20:00 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-19 20:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 20:25 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-19 18:44 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 19:01 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2015-05-21 16:10 ` David Howells
2015-05-21 16:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-23 20:37 ` Pavel Machek
2015-05-20 5:01 ` Rusty Russell
2015-05-19 8:53 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 12:46 ` David Woodhouse
2015-05-19 12:52 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 14:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 15:37 ` Mimi Zohar
2015-05-19 15:53 ` Petko Manolov
2015-05-19 17:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 15:30 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 15:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-05-19 16:09 ` Petko Manolov
2015-05-19 17:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2015-05-19 17:43 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 17:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-19 16:23 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 17:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-05-19 18:10 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 21:47 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-05-20 7:45 ` Michal Marek
2015-05-20 7:47 ` Michal Marek
2015-05-19 17:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 18:38 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 18:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-19 18:50 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 18:57 ` David Howells
2015-05-19 19:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-21 15:59 ` David Howells
2015-05-21 23:54 George Spelvin
2015-05-22 0:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-22 0:10 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-22 14:13 ` George Spelvin
2015-05-22 20:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-22 20:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-22 21:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-22 22:18 ` David Howells
2015-05-22 22:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-22 22:15 ` David Howells
2015-05-22 22:19 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-22 22:21 ` David Howells
2015-05-22 0:03 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-05-22 12:42 ` George Spelvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CALCETrWjygX_SsQxD25wfG9ttY=DjuZrDRPrhcLawOpgCXYY4A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=aricart@memnix.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=keyrings@linux-nfs.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).