Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759609AbZJGQrx (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:47:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759552AbZJGQrw (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:47:52 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:15824 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759501AbZJGQrv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:47:51 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,520,1249282800"; d="scan'208";a="733887493" From: "Cihula, Joseph" To: Pavel Machek , Roland Dreier CC: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , "Wang, Shane" , Arjan van de Ven , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:47:10 -0700 Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] x86/txt for v2.6.32 Thread-Topic: [GIT PULL] x86/txt for v2.6.32 Thread-Index: AcpGXfNApoKOcynAREahhmB5dzCyPQBDKLew Message-ID: <4F65016F6CB04E49BFFA15D4F7B798D9AC1C49D6@orsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <20090928211745.GA2119@elf.ucw.cz> <4AC1AA61.8070408@intel.com> <20090929171318.GC14405@elf.ucw.cz> <20090929191951.18315e94@infradead.org> <037F493892196B458CD3E193E8EBAD4F01ED9FE3B1@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20090930065448.GB11652@elf.ucw.cz> <037F493892196B458CD3E193E8EBAD4F01ED9FE6E3@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20091003201959.GA16047@elf.ucw.cz> <20091003203619.GA27182@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20091006081258.GB1469@ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20091006081258.GB1469@ucw.cz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2744 Lines: 74 > From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@ucw.cz] > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:13 AM > > On Sat 2009-10-03 13:44:22, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > > > > > So I modify the RAM content so that BIOS does not think measured > > > > > environment existed before suspend? > > > > > And it is ridiculously easy to pull off, too: > > > http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/21/cold-boot-disk-encryption-attack-is-shockingly- > effective/ > > > > > > Shows the attack being used to read sensitive keys, but you can use it also > > > to *modify* system running state (it will be more difficult, as you need to > > > remove and replace the RAM while on S3 instead of S5, but it should be > > > doable by someone who knows what he is doing). > > > > I believe the whole point of this TXT / S3 handling is that the resume > > from S3 will then be able to detect that the contents of RAM have been > > modified while the system was asleep. > > ...and you are able to read out any keys, etc. Maybe that's expected & > ok, but Doc*/intel_txt.txt does not actually tell me what it protects > against and is pretty much useless... making patches impossible to > review. > > So... what does txt protect? >From Documentation/intel_txt.txt: Intel TXT in Brief: o Provides dynamic root of trust for measurement (DRTM) o Data protection in case of improper shutdown o Measurement and verification of launched environment Intel TXT doesn't protect anything itself--it provides a foundation for software to provide protections and security. tboot and the associated Linux patches do this. The section of intel_txt.txt titled "Value Proposition for Linux or "Why should you care?"" tries to describe what is provided. > Data integrity only? Data integrity, yes, but not only. The code also provides for DRTM-based measurements, data protection in case of improper shutdown, etc. > Data privacy, too? No. > Who is it designed to protect against? > > Remote attacker? Yes. > Local user trying to subvert it? No. > ...and has soldering iron he's willing to use? > > ...and has soldering iron, osciloscope and PCI analyzer he's willing to use? No and no. > > TXT simply produces a reasonably trustworthy measurement of system > > state. If you modify RAM while the system is asleep, then you will not > > be able to produce a measurement showing an unmodified system state. > > Well, actually I see some auditing to be done in proposed patches. All comments are welcome. Joe -- 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/