On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 16:14 +0200, Petko Manolov wrote: > On 16-03-08 13:08:36, David Howells wrote: > > Mimi Zohar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Only certificates signed by a key on the system keyring were added to > > > the IMA keyring, unless IMA_MOK_KEYRING was configured. Then, the > > > certificate could be signed by a either a key on the system or ima_mok > > > keyrings. To replicate this behavior, the default behavior should be to > > > only permit certificates signed by a key on the builtin keyring, unless > > > this new Kconfig is enabled. Only then, permit certificates signed by a > > > key on either the builtin or secondary keyrings to be added to the IMA > > > keyring. > > > > How about I change it to a choice-type item, with the following options: > > > > (1) No addition. > > > > (2) Addition restricted by built-in keyring. > > > > (3) Addition restricted by secondary keyring + built-in keyring. > > > > where the second and third options then depend on the appropriate keyrings > > being enabled. > > I would suggest leaving (1) and (3). Since secondary keyring only accepts > keys > signed by certificate in the system keyring I think (2) is redundant. It > adds > extra complexity (Kconfig is vague enough already) while it doesn't increase > the > overall security by much.
I think you mean option 2 or 3, as option 1 implies not allowing any keys to be added to the IMA keyring. Mimi
