Re: Fedora TPM1.2 Support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:22 PM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:28 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > We are looking to no longer support TPM1.2 in RHEL9. Than raised the
> > > question with regards to opencryptoki-tpmtok if it should be changed in
> > > Fedora as well, so I thought I'd see what everyone thinks about future
> > > TPM1.2 support in Fedora. I know at one point in the last year or so
> > > trousers almost dropped from Fedora due to being orphaned for quite a
> > > while. From what I could find the following packages have dependencies:
> > >
> > > ecryptfs-utils  - --disable-tspi
> > > openconnect - looks like it will only build support if trousers-devel is
> > >               there, and makes use of tpm2-tss as well.
> > > strongswan  - --enable-tss-tss2 instead of --enable-tss-trousers?
> > > tboot       - the trousers dependency was just in a policy tool that has now
> > >               been deprecated upstream.
> > > opencryptoki-tpmtok - --disable-tpmtok
> > >
> > > tpm-quote-tools, tpm-tools, and trousers are all tpm1.2 specific
> > > packages.
> > >
> > > Another thing is that in the kernel there currently is no way to build
> > > with just tpm1.2 or tpm2.0 support so the kernel support for tpm1.2
> > > would still be there.
> > >
> > > I don't think Fedora needs to drop the tpm1.2 support if people want to
> > > continue supporting it, but wanted to put the question out there and see
> > > how everyone felt.
> >
> > I think it should be dropped, tpm2 has been shipped in hardware for 5+
> > years and tpm1 has security issues, so I think the time is now to drop
> > it. Please do a Fedora Change proposal to ensure it's communicated
> > properly.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Having never done one of these before, looking at the documentation would
> this be considered system-wide? I think in addition to the above packages
> possibly selinux-policy could be added to remove the capabilities
> listed for tcsd.

I think a Self Contained change is fine, it's relatively self
contained across a small subset of packages and well defined hardware.

Peter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux