On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:48 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 12:32 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > > > > A complementary approach would be to create an > > > > > LSM (or a dedicated interface) to tie certificate properties to a set of > > > > > kernel usages, while still letting users configure these constraints. > > > > > > > > That is an interesting idea. Would the other security maintainers be in > > > > support of such an approach? Would a LSM be the correct interface? > > > > Some of the recent work I have done with introducing key usage and CA > > > > enforcement is difficult for a distro to pick up, since these changes can be > > > > viewed as a regression. Each end-user has different signing procedures > > > > and policies, so making something work for everyone is difficult. Letting the > > > > user configure these constraints would solve this problem. > > Something definitely needs to be done about controlling the usage of > x509 certificates. My concern is the level of granularity. Would this > be at the LSM hook level or even finer granaularity? You lost me, what do you mean by finer granularity than a LSM-based access control? Can you give an existing example in the Linux kernel of access control granularity that is finer grained than what is provided by the LSMs? -- paul-moore.com
