I'm curious to hear from people working in infosec: is that real problem? How do you see the tradeoff?
I'm curious to hear from people working in infosec: is that real problem? How do you see the tradeoff?
Think about this angle: if you're concerned about infosec, and there is a malicious actor with the capability to replace your kernel (which you don't do unless you're root), you do have a real problem. Even if the kernel were verified at boot time, that same actor should have countless other attack vectors.
But it's something worth considering if a tursted chain from machine firmware all the way to the application level is established. It's not there yet.
What is the solution when you need to upgrade some kernel or program and the new version has a different cheksum? I don't see why that same solution, whatever it is, wouldn't work in the relinking case.
Some Linux distributions support kernel and kernel module signature verification in combination with secure boot. As far as I understand, RHEL does this automatically when secure boot is enabled:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterp...
Anyways, with Lenovo who is to say they didn't leak their private key out shear incompetence :)
> "At boot time, a unique kernel is built and installed for the next boot"
Therefore, if the building code is itself trusted it can make a checksum and sign it. So each boot can verify the next boot, in a blockchain-ish way.
If you are in a position to replace the kernel, can't you also replace the code that does this verification?
That is exactly how games are cracked, as I understand.