lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] binfmt_elf: Verify signature of signed elf binary
From
Date
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 11:42 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:55:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> [..]
> > Please remind me why you can't use IMA-appraisal, which was upstreamed
> > in Linux 3.7? Why another method is needed?
>
> So is this IMA-appraisal also supports digital signatures? The IMA white
> paper seems to put digital signatures in separate category
> (IMA-Appraisal-Signature-Extension).

The white paper was written a couple of years ago, before either EVM or
IMA-appraisal were upstreamed.

- Linux 3.2: Extended Verification Module (EVM) - protects file metadata from offline modification
- Linux 3.3: Dmitry Kasatkin's digital signature verification for use with EVM/IMA-appraisal.
- Linux 3.7: IMA-appraisal/with digital signatures

> > With IMA-appraisal, there are a couple of issues that would still need
> > to be addressed:
> > - missing the ability to specify the validation method required.

Patches to address this issue are available from linux-integrity-test/
#next-ima-appraise-status and were posted on the LSM mailing list as an
RFC (12/18/2012). Review of these patches would be appreciated.

> > - modify the ima_appraise_tcb policy policy to require elf executables
> > to be digitally signed.
>
> For my use case, all executable don't have to be digitally signed. If
> something is digitally signed then do the signature verification.

We already discussed this. Hard coding policy into the Linux kernel is
wrong.

thanks,

Mimi



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-21 20:01    [W:1.982 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site