Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently self-signed keys [ver #2]

From	Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently self-signed keys [ver #2]
Date	2016-01-06 15:10 +0100
Message-ID	<qNWWL-2bS-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qNVxE-16O-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNCll-5bm-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNC1Y-4OF-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNCOn-5m1-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNWk2-1HB-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 2016-01-06 at 13:21 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > The x509_validate_trust() was originally added for IMA to ensure, on a
> > secure boot system, a certificate chain of trust rooted in hardware.
> > The IMA MOK keyring extends this certificate chain of trust to the
> > running system.
> 
> The problem is that because 'trusted' is a boolean, a key in the IMA MOK
> keyring will permit addition to the system keyring.

Once the builtin keys are loaded onto the system keyring, isn't the
system keyring locked?  Or is this the only mechanism used for locking?

Mimi

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

Thread

[RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently  self-signed keys [ver #2] David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-05 16:50 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently self-signed keys [ver #2] David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-05 17:00 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently  self-signed keys [ver #2] Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-05 17:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently self-signed keys [ver #2] David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-05 17:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently  self-signed keys [ver #2] Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-06 13:40 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently self-signed keys [ver #2] David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-06 14:30 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently  self-signed keys [ver #2] Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-01-06 15:10 +0100
            Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently self-signed keys [ver #2] David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-06 15:20 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently  self-signed keys [ver #2] Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-06 18:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently self-signed keys [ver #2] David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-01-05 17:50 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] X.509: Don't check the signature on apparently  self-signed keys [ver #2] Petko Manolov <petkan@mip-labs.com> - 2016-01-05 18:10 +0100

csiph-web