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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 63DA0C4338F for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 03:23:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE84E60F22 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 03:23:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org BE84E60F22 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stwcx.xyz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GfcWn3GmMz3bNk for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:23:17 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=stwcx.xyz header.i=@stwcx.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=ryNmzvXB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=d112iogE; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=stwcx.xyz (client-ip=66.111.4.25; helo=out1-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=patrick@stwcx.xyz; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=stwcx.xyz header.i=@stwcx.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=ryNmzvXB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=d112iogE; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GfcWJ3qcqz30HW for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:22:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EAF25C0058; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 23:22:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Aug 2021 23:22:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stwcx.xyz; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=rCDN6OnCQvtfrmXdE4eCYySLT7v OKoVblEdD1K7Pk2A=; b=ryNmzvXB21j5Q3VPzCdRgUGJnDWSA4d2R3PVuWVq2Kh Asef8VRgnddgGchzpLNZ373u+gHE2SQrHkdnHpMYivzEG8nGGVW4TPmcjF39lyd7 e0JW9Zi/16MTiifFEfIhasCWg6B1c4Zg+kb3tHDZk+j1B0WOyygg2TP5iR+KuB3p ulnalenOuir+jsKZBoKde/g/ctBYIfc9upJG8+ljAbjEgAg+C/AVPgW1J19PQ4Kv f1X9YTHpz3r5BGtMaUJs7nFEnlHYbd3+Fb3b4k+Kw9NxFHSaie+w9koac5dBKyUH UFFjRx+PUHYpujSB+J1VxFa+WkZu5U5iwlhgdQLuSnQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=rCDN6O nCQvtfrmXdE4eCYySLT7vOKoVblEdD1K7Pk2A=; b=d112iogEiQNrz2Y3fwK3yK Yn8aCeKOG2suDbZly42kgYitOWb8AueewiYkz9KQbA6KGb7lrgIpribCtcHg3dkC v1izfj4Y4ORwtCM0bA8aXe9DUo7KrZ5VmgRXYDtzoFRLq0d81Sa9G+Hb1dWeJ7eS 7slW6fJ0Z1YCnpgfk5lCUXz/2GfKh7Hx1QOLlSFO9Uz0T8SLs90YIqP6bBNg4x2+ JhMreGyQHAoZLgUmBx9RbqbH8jiHgwuwjIWlToVnIMrjEIYJ89xLJzw9cJyK6YnC fySw6QtdCtHCja624dKd3Oum6SjAQq4OUppONM46V83IqkIdVQSf6iK3G9ukVzNA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrieehgdeihecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenog fuuhhsphgvtghtffhomhgrihhnucdlgeelmdenfghrlhcuvffnffculdefhedmnecujfgu rhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtdorredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghkuc ghihhllhhirghmshcuoehprghtrhhitghksehsthiftgigrdighiiiqeenucggtffrrght thgvrhhnpeeggeevleevgffgueeltefgvdegtdfhjeffvdeuueeuvdfgleelkeffkeetje eiteenucffohhmrghinhepghhoohhglhgvrdgtohhmpdhophgvnhgsmhgtqdhprhhojhgv tghtrdighiiipdihuhgsihgtohdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurf grrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprghtrhhitghksehsthiftgigrdighiii X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 23:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:22:47 -0500 From: Patrick Williams To: Joseph Reynolds Subject: Re: Security Working Group meeting - Wednesday August 4 Message-ID: References: <89b3524f-a1b3-513c-fc6a-1d888e479238@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gD+/D1+Sw8wbMOdl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <89b3524f-a1b3-513c-fc6a-1d888e479238@linux.ibm.com> X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: openbmc Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" --gD+/D1+Sw8wbMOdl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 05:57:52PM -0500, Joseph Reynolds wrote: > This is a reminder of the OpenBMC Security Working Group meeting=20 > scheduled for this Wednesday August 4 at 10:00am PDT. >=20 > We'll discuss the following items on the agenda=20 > ,=20 > and anything else that comes up: >=20 > 1. (Joseph): IBM ACF design (2FA authentication for the special IBM > service account) is in review - > https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/docs/+/45201 > I still feel like the "Alternatives considered" are pretty weak in this document. Rather than paint broad brushes ("Other were considered. They w= ere not suitable.") I think you should enumerate _which_ alternatives were considered and _why_ they don't fit the problem at hand. ``` - Takes four parameters: machine serial number, expiration date, password, = and private key. - Algorithm: - Hashes the password. - Creates the ACF from the hashed password, serial number, and expiratio= n date. - Digitally signs the ACF using the private key. - Returns the ACF to the caller. ``` This sounds a lot like U2F. The "4 parameters" are the challenge, IBM's key signing server is the U2F device, and PAM is the "Relying Party". There are already PAM modules for some aspects of U2F and the token you need to excha= nge is reasonably short (my Yubikey output is 33 characters). https://developers.yubico.com/U2F/Protocol_details/Overview.html The nice aspect if you can reuse portions of the U2F protocol is that you g= o a long way towards enabling others to add more typical 2FA like Yubikeys. --=20 Patrick Williams --gD+/D1+Sw8wbMOdl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEBGD9ii4LE9cNbqJBqwNHzC0AwRkFAmEKCAUACgkQqwNHzC0A wRm27g//SaHv02ZhO9xGOrIm8WBoRkT/2P5iKt2LE0wUF0+HS0UB7kUo8qJJWinB 2jEvqKWcAl0dmeMcPbDx7iH5wXOT4q8Kq8OPl/ICAqeWQqB+/qQ/84FeusqA9Zm0 EjiCUafGQ20kk1IqpWM8XbmzebtTckVHJ7ZE7m8odVRb/DmTJJyiJCKyOr4HeLgE QUo6VeuXFLZPpaO8VKsGe7bmVMYJoY6L1HdOaMAh4baSleQeBtQnjvP0Y0UmDEPx 3oJZy+EeYGmfxHWxU88RMELn1yzhmwRykbc47o8RJomQxcpRBMGPvK7JEjejs9+H HVaC7PPQ9nd+cpCjOrJrxr9RuOm0QK5/t0uhyWclZg9ewhLEs9IVEtwwNVD2Meti xlyuePWYGY0iTy20g5VyACo/9NrxBEqdFOnh9eaaAOFhyKTU4pDGaD0tZsokhG5C tFva3LtlOPwkNbCRI1YDWFVhGpP6eJF7ZZ2oOIPehOlwBKePTK8VdyeR+v8FNZQx nyXmV3EGlcgTsO17Hkd8rfkACQ4KT9Hu9WC8hhoO0IwlRYi9TTt0M0VhbS6k31AU 0e7oWgUta6kMkG4YLPhaTm0oka+e5XF2E1NALrmDH/ulGjEeUbTpEC/R6gxYY4fH XFtEm/3M99hIO7wEwfQhWCbHDzdqEsVhNHyGWev7sj+2z88KyAM= =2Gy4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gD+/D1+Sw8wbMOdl--