On 8/8/23 14:41, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 16:09 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 8/8/23 14:26, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 09:31 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 8/8/23 08:35, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2023-08-07 at 18:49 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 8/1/23 17:21, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 12:12 -0700, Sush Shringarputale
wrote:
[...]
Truncating IMA log to reclaim memory is not feasible,
since
it makes the log go out of sync with the TPM PCR quote
making
remote attestation fail.
This assumption isn't entirely true. It's perfectly
possible
to shard an IMA log using two TPM2_Quote's for the
beginning
and end PCR values to validate the shard. The IMA log
could be
truncated in the same way (replace the removed part of the
log
with a TPM2_Quote and AK, so the log still validates from
the
beginning quote to the end).
If you use a TPM2_Quote mechanism to save the log, all you
need
to do is have the kernel generate the quote with an
internal
AK. You can keep a record of the quote and the AK at the
beginning of the truncated kernel log. If the truncated
entries are saved in a file shard it
The truncation seems dangerous to me. Maybe not all the
scenarios
with an attestation client (client = reading logs and
quoting)
are possible then anymore, such as starting an attestation
client
only after truncation but a verifier must have witnessed the
system's PCRs and log state before the truncation occurred.
That's not exactly correct. Nothing needs to have "witnessed"
the
starting PCR value because the quote vouches for it (and can
vouch
for it after the fact). The only thing you need to verify the
quote is the attestation key and the only thing you need to do
to
trust the attestation key is ensure it was TPM created. All of
that can be verified after the fact as well. The only thing
that
can be done to disrupt this is to destroy the TPM (or re-own
it).>
Remember the assumption is you *also* have the removed log
shard to
present. From that the PCR state of the starting quote can be
Yes, the whole sequence of old logs needs to be available.
Yes and no. If the person relying on the logs is happy they've
extracted all the evidentiary value from the log itself then they
can
reduce the preceding log shard to simply the PCR values that match
the
quote and discard the rest.
IF that's the case and the logs can be stitched together
seamlessly, who then looks at the kernel AK quote and under what
circumstances?
For incremental attestation. Each log shard can be verified using
the base PCR values corresponding to the bottom quote then replayed
and the
Somehow you have to tell a verifier to take a snapshot of the current
state of the PCRs when it replays the logs to be able to truncate the
log.
No, the verifier is server side. It would be the agent or the kernel,
client side, which gets the quote and shards the log. That way the
operation can be done in such a way as to make sure the quote and the
shard point match. I'd imagine the verifier can provide some sort of
guide as to how big it wants the shards to be and the client complies.
Yup. Agreed.
Whether the state of the PCRs is in the log itself or it's just some
sort of entry in the log indicating a truncation probably doesn't
matter for as long as the verifying side keeps state of the PCRs at
point of truncatiokn.
The idea would be the log shard would be self attesting, that's why
quote at beginning and end (and probably PCR state at beginning), so no
verifier required until someone wants to check the log.
Also, the verifying side needs to take notice of the trustworthiness
of the system at the time the log was truncated in case the
attestation client is restarted and starts out sending the log with
the first entry.
That's usually what a runtime verification system is actually
verifying, yes.
The PCR state shown at the beginning of the truncated log (when
restarting the attestation client) must then match when the 'notice'
was taken and that determines its trustworthiness at this point in
the log.
That there's a kernel AK signature
A quote is a signature over PCR state signed by an AK, yes.
at this point doesn't seem necessary since one presumably can verify
the log and PCR states at the end with the 'regular' quote.
I don't understand this. A regular quote is a signature over PCR state
by an AK. The point about saving the AK in the log for the original is
that if the *kernel* truncates the log and saves it to a file, it needs
to generate both the AK and the quote for the top of the file shard.
That means the AK/EK binding is unverified, but can be verified by
loading the AK and running the usual tests, which can only be done if
you have the loadable AK, which is why you need it as part of the log
saving proposal.
I had this question about the usability of AK/EK in this
context. Although AK/EK + PCR quote is needed to verify the snapshot
shards / IMA logs are not tampered with, I am still not sure why AK/EK
needs to be part of the shard/IMA log. The client sending AK/EK to
attestation service separately would still serve the purpose, right?
For instance, PCR quotes will be signed by AK. So as long as the verifier
trusts the AK/EK, it can verify the quotes are not tampered with.
Replaying IMA log/snapshot can produce the PCR quotes which can be
matched with signed PCR quotes. If they match, then the verifier can
conclude that the IMA log is not tampered with. So AK doesn't need to
be part of the log/snapshot.
BTW, in this proposal, kernel is truncating the log and passing the
truncated buffer to UM. UM client need to save it to the disk location
of it's choice.
Nobody should ever trust a system by starting to look at the
beginning of a truncated log. You have to have evaluated all the
entries in the log before and determined whether the system was
trustworthy. I don't think the kernel AK quote buys much - at least
not from what I can see.
You have a log shard with PCR state at the beginning and calculated at
the end, both of which you can verify. How you establish trust in the
starting PCR values of the shard is a policy decision, but the policy
doesn't have to be you see every shard up to boot. You could take the
word of the system owner on a handoff of responsibility for instance.
Agreed. You don’t have to go all the way to the boot snapshot
(shard). It is up to the attestation service which last-known-good PCR
quotes (sometimes referred as golden PCR quotes) it trusts, and verify
the snapshots / logs after that.
~Tushar
James
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
