Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Thursday 15 February 2007 12:34, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:14:53 PST, Andreas Gruenbacher said:
> > I agree, that's really what should happen. We solve this by marking
> > modules as supported, partner supported, or unsupported, but in an
> > "insecure" way, so partners and users could try to fake the support
> > status of a module and/or remove status flags from Oopses, and
> > cryptography wouldn't save us.
>
> Where cryptography *can* save you is that a partner or user can't fake a
> 'Suse Supported' signature without access to the Suse private key.

No question about that. We actually already get this from rpm signatures. What 
would module signatures buy us? The kernel could then reliably determine that 
an unsigned module was loaded. But people could still fake their Oopses, or 
overwite the flags which indicate that a module's signature didn't match, so 
we still wouldn't reliably get at that information.

Andreas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/