Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:17:57 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Lang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown |
| |
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Kees Cook wrote:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:29:45AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> On 09/10/2013 11:26 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>>>>> That's why modern systems require signed firmware updates. >>>>> >>>>> Linux doesn't. Is someone working on adding signature support to the >>>>> runtime firmware loader? >>>> >>>> It'd be simple to do so, but so far the model appears to be that devices >>>> that expect signed firmware enforce that themselves. >>>> >>> >>> Most devices do absolutely no verification on the firmware, and simply >>> trust the driver. >>> >>> So signing firmware is probably critical. >> >> How are you going to "validate" that the firmware is correct, given >> that it's just a "blob" living in the linux-firmware tree. If you sign >> it, what is that saying? > > In theory these blobs are traceable to a manufacturer. It's not really > an indication that it's "safe" more than it's an indication that it > hasn't been changed. But I haven't chased this very hard yet because > of below...
well, not if you are trying to defend against root breaking in to the machine.
David Lang
| |