On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 17:22 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 00:19 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:48:37PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 22:02 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> > In this case, not only is there a
>> > security hook, but the IMA hook exists as well. To appraise firmware,
>> > add a line to the IMA policy containing "appraise func=FIRMWARE_CHECK".
>> > Similarly, to add a measurement to the measurement list, add a line to
>> > the IMA policy containing "measure func=FIRMWAE_CHECK".
>>
>> I have a series of reasons find IMA unsuitable for the current goals at hand:
>>
>> 1) IMA is a pretty big kitchen sink, we want this to work well for
>> even embedded systems, or architectures that do not have or require
>> TPMs
>
> There are different aspects to IMA. One aspect is collecting file
> measurements and extending the TPM with those measurements. The other
> aspect is appraising file integrity. For that aspect, IMA-appraisal
> does not use a TPM.
>
>> 2) The appraisal is also done for to account for a specific state of
>> affairs, you appraise to the user of the integrity of the system at a
>> specific point in time,
>
> True, IMA can be used to attest to the integrity of a system.
>
>> firmware signing can provide integrity /
>> authorship vetting of files directly from the authors.
>
> It can also be used to appraise the integrity of a file, be it an
> executable, a kernel module, configuration file or firmware in a
> consistent manor, based on a file hash or signature.
>
>> In the case of
>> regulatory.bin that was the whole point of it, and firmware signing as
>> is being provided is intended to generalize that but by sharing code
>> in-kernel with module signing infrastructure
>
> The underlying code used to verify the file signatures is the same.
> The difference being where/how the file signatures are stored and which
> keys to trust.
>
>> I am in hopes some others might be able to chime in more on point 2) here.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong IMA is nice, but its a big chunky requirement to
>> have, more than what module signing provides and what it requires
>> today to replace subsystem file signing requirements.
>
>> Now, LSM hooks -- that's more aligned with something we can start IMHO
>> reasonably arguing we should shift module signing code to be punted
>> into. But I've heard stories of LSM having issues with some virtual
>> environments, and LSM stacking is also pretty new, and IMHO that'd be
>> one way to compartmentalize all this module signing code. IMHO that
>> *should happen* but can only be taken seriously once LSM stacking is
>> merged in and baked. Its not, but I'm excited for it.
>
> Have you even looked at IMA-appraisal?
I just looked extremely briefly. It seems to be much simpler than the
PKCS#7 thing. OTOH, it seems to hardcode some rather scary
assumptions that it's using RSA in digsig_asymmetric.c, specifically:
pks.rsa.s = mpi_read_raw_data(hdr->sig, siglen);
This bit in ima_appraise_measurement ignores trailing junk. Why?
if (xattr_len - sizeof(xattr_value->type) - hash_start >=
iint->ima_hash->length)
/* xattr length may be longer. md5 hash in previous
version occupied 20 bytes in xattr, instead of 16
*/
rc = memcmp(&xattr_value->digest[hash_start],
iint->ima_hash->digest,
iint->ima_hash->length);
I got confused around here:
/* Replace RSA with HMAC if not mounted readonly and
* not immutable
*/
if (!IS_RDONLY(dentry->d_inode) &&
!IS_IMMUTABLE(dentry->d_inode))
evm_update_evmxattr(dentry, xattr_name,
xattr_value,
xattr_value_len);
Huh?
Anyway, AFAICT IMA is about tracking the integrity of an FS that's
being actively modified, not about distributing signed things. Also,
I couldn't spot what part of IMA detects an attacker replacing one
signed file with a different one from the same filesystem but a
different name.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
