Closed jason-rodri closed 1 week ago
Can we get the UKI's SBAT, or you aren't providing UKI kernel?
Can we get the UKI's SBAT, or you aren't providing UKI kernel?
We are not moving forward with signing UKI build at this time.
@aronowski @SherifNagy Please let me know if I can provide additional information to help the review process.
@jason-rodri nothing at the moment, we are working through the queue
The application looks alright, apart from one minor nitpick:
*******************************************************************************
### Does your SHIM load any loaders that support loading unsigned kernels (e.g. GRUB2)?
*******************************************************************************
Grub2 will only load unsigned code if the secureboot feature is turned off load unsigned kernels, but only with secureboot mode turned off on an end-user's system.
The duplicated explanation in the answer hasn't been fixed yet, just like in the EL8 application. ;-)
STEP 14/14: RUN chmod 0755 /root/shim-compare.sh; /root/shim-compare.sh
Shim Comparison, original binary vs. freshly built binaries:
SHA256 sums :: f67bf3bb333d1e8ecfbb372f93ad7056e12c43c4eedc335e235c66b7af9fa940 /shimx64.efi f67bf3bb333d1e8ecfbb372f93ad7056e12c43c4eedc335e235c66b7af9fa940 /shim_result/usr/share/shim/15.8-0.el9/x64/shimx64.efi
* NX flag is not set, because the chain is not yet ready
* Self signed 4096 bit cert and valid for almost 24 years
## GRUB2
* SBAT looks fine (keeps upstream RHEL/rocky grub2)
* Version currently does not include NTFS patches, but the signed versions also not include the NTFS module so sbat `grub,3`
* Module list sound fine
## Kernel
* Ephemeral keys are used for signing kernel modules
* Lockdown patches are included (keeps upstream RHEL kernel)
## Notes
Along side the note from @aronowski
* UKI kernel isn't signed, so keep an eye on the meta issue #397
* grub2's SBAT note section "version" isn't 100% accurate with upstream
* fwupd notes section as well needs fixing, below is what Rocky currently has
sbat,1,UEFI shim,sbat,1,https://github.com/rhboot/shim/blob/main/SBAT.md fwupd-efi,1,Firmware update daemon,fwupd-efi,1.4,https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd-efi fwupd-efi.rhel,1,Red Hat Enterprise Linux,fwupd,1.9.13,mail:secalert@redhat.com fwupd-efi.rocky,1,Rocky Linux,fwupd,1.9.13,mail:security@rockylinux.org
* You aren't keeping any upstream fwupd entries for sbat, I assume this is acceptable Cc: @steve-mcintyre for input
Other than those few notes, LGTM, we will need one more reviewer
ciqliq-shim-EL9-x64-20240705
#17 0.422 f67bf3bb333d1e8ecfbb372f93ad7056e12c43c4eedc335e235c66b7af9fa940 /shimx64.efi
#17 0.422 f67bf3bb333d1e8ecfbb372f93ad7056e12c43c4eedc335e235c66b7af9fa940 /shim_result/usr/share/shim/15.8-0.el9/x64/shimx64.efi
LGTM! I'll raise the certmule/certwrapper question during today's call and will get back to you
As discussed yesterday using certwrapper to import the Rocky Linux CA is likely fine. We just need confirmation that certwrapper is ready for production use and can be signed. @jsetje do you know the status of certwrapper?
Signed binaries returned from MSFT.
I understand the that there is still a question around certwrapper. Do we still want to keep this open until @jsetje replies?
I understand the that there is still a question around certwrapper. Do we still want to keep this open until @jsetje replies?
Yeah let's keep this open until there is a definite answer if you can sign certwrapper
@jsetje is certwrapper now ready to sign for people or should they wait?
As discussed with @steve-mcintyre, the certwrapper is ready to sign.
Confirm the following are included in your repo, checking each box:
What is the link to your tag in a repo cloned from rhboot/shim-review?
https://github.com/ctrliq/ciq-shim-build/releases/tag/ciqliq-shim-EL9-x64-20240705
What is the SHA256 hash of your final SHIM binary?
SHA256 (shimx64.efi) = f67bf3bb333d1e8ecfbb372f93ad7056e12c43c4eedc335e235c66b7af9fa940
What is the link to your previous shim review request (if any, otherwise N/A)?
Ctrl IQ, Inc Shim 15.8 for x64 & ia32 #366
If no security contacts have changed since verification, what is the link to your request, where they've been verified (if any, otherwise N/A)?
Jason Rodriguez Michael Young