[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: questions about UEFI-Secure Boot



On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 16:03 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:00:38PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 12:06 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
[...]
> > > How long does signing take?
> > > ---------------------------
> > > 
> > > Using a YubiKey as proposed, how long does signing all binaries take for
> > > the different packages?
> > 
> > I think the answer is "way too long", but Julien can be more precise.
> > 
> > I proposed to use a file-based key for signing modules.  It is easy
> 
> incomplete sentence?

I think I was going to say it's easier to replace module signing keys,
as signed modules are already bound to a small range of kernel
versions.

> > > What happens when UEFI-Secure Boot can be bypassed?
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > The requirements from Microsoft state that no unauthenticated code must
> > > be executed before ExitBootServices is called and may revoke submissions
> > > that allow this to happen.
> > > 
> > > What happens when root can get the Linux kernel or grub to do so (for
> > > example by exploiting a bug)?  Might Microsoft revoke the shim
> > > signature?
> > 
> > In theory, yes.
> 
> Bugs happen. If Microsoft have revoked any keys so far, they've been
> quiet about it. But there is support for revocation of keys, both
> directly at the UEFI level and in mok/shim.
[...]

They already revoked all old versions of the Windows boot loader on
ARM:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityBulletins/2016/ms16-100

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
When in doubt, use brute force. - Ken Thompson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: