On 16:42 Mon 16 Mar , Jan Lübbe wrote: > On Mo, 2015-03-16 at 12:33 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > I do not like and do not want to use the FTD format to store the key > > but x509. > > Yes, I think we are in agreement that we need to support both key > formats. > > > Image format need to be 100% seperated from key format. > > Of course. > > > That's why I work on a framework so we do not care of both. > > > > Multiple image format with multiple image of key format. > > Could you explain your image format in a bit more detail? How your > intend to defend against a mix-and-match attack? One of the format we are using can only be one configure signed or/and encrypted so no mix-and-match attack Best Regards, J. > > Regards, > Jan > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | > _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
