Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:57:17 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! |
| |
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private > > keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build > > process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys > > without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have > > been part of the kernel build itself. > > The GPL does allow you to embed a public key in the kernel
Absolutely. That's why I said "private key".
It's clearly ok to embed any number of keys you damn well want inside the kernel itself - it's just that the GPL requires that they be made available as source, so by implication they had damn well better be public.
So yes, it's perfectly fine to embed a public key inside the kernel, and use that public key to verify some external private key.
> I know a lot of people can (and do) object to such a potential use of > Linux, and I'm glad to see you explicitly state that this is an > acceptable use, it helps to clear up the issue.
The reason I want to make it very explicit is that I know (judging from the private discussions I've had over the last few weeks) that a lot of people think that the GPL can be interpreted in such a way that even just the act of signing a binary would make the key used for the signing be covered by the GPL. Which obviously would make the act of signing something totally pointless.
And even if some lawyer could interpret it that way (and hey, they take limbo classes in law school explicitly to make sure that the lawyers _are_ flexible enough. Really! Look it up in the dictionary - right next to "gullible"), I wanted to make sure that we very explicitly do NOT interpret it that way.
Because signing is (at least right now) the only way to show that you trust something. And if you can't show that you trust something, you can't have any real security.
The problem with security, of course, is exactly _whom_ the security is put in place to protect. But that's not a question that we can (or should) try to answer in a license. That's a question that you have to ask yourself when (and if) you're presented with such a device.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |