Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Meta: Requiring a signing transparency log #291

Open
julian-klode opened this issue Nov 4, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Meta: Requiring a signing transparency log #291

julian-klode opened this issue Nov 4, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
meta Not a review request, but an issue or notice wrt the signing process

Comments

@julian-klode
Copy link
Collaborator

(I've discussed this with a couple of people before, I don't know if it's been raised off record by anyone yet, but here we go)

We should know what has been signed, hence vendors should provide a public signing transparency log listing each binary with the following information:

  • When it was signed
  • The PE hash
  • The sources it was built from (e.g. source package versions for linux distros or something I can follow there)

Plan:

  • Flesh out log service requirements and format
  • Require log presence starting for shim SBAT level 4 or June (now + 6 months), whatever earlier
  • Record all vendors that were signed with log service requirement and their vendor DB certificates
  • Feature in fwupd (@hughsie) to submit hashes of installed EFI binaries from known vendors to LVFS on opt-in, so that it can be detected if binaries were omitted from the signing log.
@julian-klode julian-klode added the meta Not a review request, but an issue or notice wrt the signing process label Nov 4, 2022
@hughsie
Copy link

hughsie commented Nov 4, 2022

Sigstore?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
meta Not a review request, but an issue or notice wrt the signing process
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants