Hey again,
On 9/4/24 21:01, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
Hi Luto.
On 8/28/24 23:17, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:10 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15 2024 at 13:38, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
On 5/31/24 09:54, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
That paragraph is also phrased as a hypothetical, "Even if we'd
prefer to use
SHA-256-only". That implies that you do not, in fact, prefer
SHA-256 only. Is
that the case? Sure, maybe there are situations where you *have*
to use SHA-1,
but why would you not at least *prefer* SHA-256?
Yes. Please prefer to use SHA-256.
Have you considered implementing I think it is SHA1-DC (as git has)
that
is compatible with SHA1 but blocks the known class of attacks where
sha1 is actively broken at this point?
We are using the kernel's implementation, addressing what the kernel
provides is beyond our efforts. Perhaps someone who is interested in
improving the kernel's SHA1 could submit a patch implementing/replacing
it with SHA1-DC, as I am sure the maintainers would welcome the help.
Well, someone who is interested to get his "secure" code merged should
have a vested interested to have a non-broken SHA1 implementation if
there is a sensible requirement to use SHA1 in that new "secure" code,
no?
Just for the record. The related maintainers can rightfully decide to
reject known broken "secure" code on a purely technical argument.
Wait, hold on a second.
SHA1-DC isn't SHA1. It's a different hash function that is mostly
compatible with SHA1, is different on some inputs, and is maybe more
secure. But the _whole point_ of using SHA1 in the TPM code (well,
this really should be the whole point for new applications) is to
correctly cap the SHA1 PCRs so we can correctly _turn them off_ in the
best way without breaking compatibility with everything that might
read the event log. I think that anyone suggesting using SHA1-DC for
this purpose should give some actual analysis as to why they think
it's an improvement, let alone even valid.
I would say at a minimum it is to provide a means to cap the PCRs.
Devices with TPM1.2 are still prevalent in the wild for which members of
the TrenchBoot community support, and there are still valid (and secure)
verification uses for SHA1 that I outlined in my previous response.
Ross et al, can you confirm that your code actually, at least by
default and with a monstrous warning to anyone who tries to change the
default, caps SHA1 PCRs if SHA256 is available? And then can we maybe
all stop hassling the people trying to develop this series about the
fact that they're doing their best with the obnoxious system that the
TPM designers gave them?
Our goal is to keep control in the hands of the user, not making
unilateral decisions on their behalf. In the currently deployed
solutions it is left to the initrd (user) to cap the PCRs. After some
thinking, we can still ensure user control and give an option to cap the
PCRs earlier. We hope to post a v11 later this week or early next week
that introduces a new policy field to the existing measurement policy
framework. Will add/update the kernel docs with respect to the policy
expansion. We are also looking the best way we might add a warning to
the kernel log if the SHA1 bank is used beyond capping the PCRs.
As the attempt was made to lay in the policy logic, it started to become
convoluted and unnecessarily complicated. Thus creating more risk with
all the bookkeeping and yet sha1 hashes still have to be sent, the null
hash in this case, since the TPM driver will reject extends that do not
have hashes for all active banks. At this point, we have opted to keep
the logic simple and add a section to our documentation advising of the
potential risk should one choose to incorporate SHA1 in their
attestations of the platform.
v/r,
dps
