feat: remote signing server and signature generalization #278

RaitoBezarius · 2024-01-03T19:25:18Z

This PR is composed of ~four changes:

generalization of signature schemes in the tool
generalization of how to assemble stubs in the shared library
a remote signature server that sends you signed stub in exchange for signature requests
an implementation inside lzbt-systemd of remote signing

This enables moving the local signature to another server… or even maybe a hardware security token!

In the future, the server can ask for attestations or any kind of things to give the signed stub.

Note

Initrd secrets are not supported by the remote signer

This is out of scope for this PR and will probably not supported as I plan to bring systemd credentials
first inside of NixOS and remove the legacy initrd secrets which are a broken feature.

What were alternatives?

Offer a way to send the secret to the signer: NAK because an attacker could present a secret being a trivial privilege escalation binary.
Force the secret to be present on the signer: NAK because this would require at least a policy to allow / disallow access to a given secret based on the requester, this is too big for this PR.
Therefore, initrd secrets will NOT work with the remote signer.

RaitoBezarius · 2024-01-03T19:26:36Z

Replaces #228, I need to fix more conflicts and it should be good.

nikstur · 2024-01-21T12:30:59Z

I converted this to a draft since it depends on your fork.

rust/tool/server/Cargo.toml

rust/tool/server/README.md

nikstur · 2024-01-21T12:43:25Z

nix/tests/remote-signing.nix

+          server.wait_for_open_port(9999)
+          # Perform a switch to the remote configuration
+          # and contact the server to get the right bootables.
+          with subtest("Activation will request for remote signing"):


This means the server has to be available at the time re-building. This probably won't scale well but should be good enough for now.

Hm, why wouldn't it scale well?

What if the server is unavailable at the time of re-build? Does the re-building just fail? Do you want to add client-side retries? None of the solutions I can think of are super elegant.

The normal person usecase would be:

I have a dozen of machines and they all have Secure Boot, I'd like to rebuild switch without all of them having access to the private key, I can just contact my secure server with TPM2 or HSM who has the machinery to perform secure signatures and send it my stuff its way.

If my secure server is down, I cannot sign my new binaries.

What is this really saying is that remote secure signing is load bearing and you need high availability if you don't want to fail rebuilding your system in those scenarios.

High availability can be facilitated on our side by having multiple fallbacks we can try in a certain order, e.g. remote secure signing (convenient, fast, secure!) and then the fallback is you pull your Yubikey and sign it on the "field recovery" certificate or whatever.

There will be, once those PRs land, a whole discussion on how do you seriously manage this at scale.

nix/modules/lanzaboote.nix

nikstur · 2024-01-21T12:46:31Z

flake.nix

+          lanzasigndCrane = buildRustApp {
+            pname = "lanzasignd";
+            src = craneLib.cleanCargoSource ./rust/tool;
+            doCheck = false;


We should have at least some rudimentary unit/integration tests for the server as well.

rust/tool/shared/src/signature/mod.rs

nikstur · 2024-01-21T12:52:49Z

rust/tool/shared/src/signature/mod.rs

+
+    /// Verify the signature of a PE binary, provided as bytes.
+    /// Return true if the signature was verified.
+    fn verify(&self, pe_binary: &[u8]) -> Result<bool>;


It's a little odd that the Signer trait can also verify.

I can make it like signature and derive a VerifyingKey handle and you can call verify on that but it seems like overengineering to me.

Yes, that'd be overengineering. Is there a higher-level concept that encapsulates both verifying and signing? Not a big issue if we keep the Signer terminology and just add a comment.

rust/tool/server/src/main.rs

rust/tool/shared/Cargo.toml

rust/tool/server/Cargo.toml

…t packages Now, it is possible to build any package of the workspace in a fine grained fashion.

We want here to capture the required data to assemble a stub, here is a partial structure modulo ESP generation paths. Other pieces of code can consume this structure, validate it before passing it to the PE assembler and the signer. We convert everything into owned structures because we cannot really do deserialization in any context with lifetimes going around, but, allocations are generally very cheap in this context.

In order to offer more flexible signature mechanisms in lanzaboote, we need to take a step back and offer a general PE signature trait. After this, we will be able to plug various different implementations.

RaitoBezarius · 2024-01-25T02:15:42Z

I converted this to a draft since it depends on your fork.

This is not dependent on a fork anymore, now.

Remote signing enables a user to request for: - PE signature of a given store path, which is assumed to be available on the server side - PE signature oi a stub given by its parameters, which are assumed to be analyzable on the server side (i.e. computing hashes is possible.) - Verifying if a PE signature is correct according to PE signatures and Secure Boot policy

It is now possible to use remote signature inside lzbt-systemd.

This is an example server to perform remote signatures based on stub parameters provided.

Our lanzaboote integration tests are getting more and more sophisticated and ambitious. Let's extract them into a "lanzalib", so they can be used with multiple backends.

We build lanzasignd now as part of the flake as an additional software we provide.

Introduces the Secure Boot remote signing server for NixOS.

Lanzaboote boot module now supports using a potential remote signer server, but this support is limited to the lanzaboote bootables and not the fwupd ones.

A simple test harness for remote signatures with lanzasignd.

We didn't test if there *was* a signature, idempotency of removal of signatures (i.e. removing an non-existent signature is the identity operation) could fool us into believing we had a signed thing then not signed.

This is relevant for a remote signer who relies on the existence of store paths remotely, for example.

We fabricated a lot of initrds which were exactly the same as the one in our store when we had no initrd secrets. This ends this practice.

personal todo: - returns stub parameters in the toplevel setup - verify paths for local keypair - build and sign a stub, verify it using the API, verify it locally (?) - build a stub, sign a "store path" (actually a temporary location on the same system), verify it using the API - sign a random file, verify it using the API

RaitoBezarius · 2024-01-25T03:21:32Z

Personal TODO and expectations for reviewers:

I need to update the flake build of signd.
I need to fix the wiring up for the integration testing.

@nikstur Do you have anything else you would like me to address for this?

blitz · 2024-02-10T19:10:19Z

Given that this PR is currently gigantic and you say it consists of four distinct parts, can we possibly split it in multiple PRs for review?

From my perspective we are also missing overview documentation here.

RaitoBezarius · 2024-02-10T19:55:06Z

Given that this PR is currently gigantic and you say it consists of four distinct parts, can we possibly split it in multiple PRs for review?

From my perspective we are also missing overview documentation here.

Sure!

RaitoBezarius force-pushed the signing-client branch 4 times, most recently from 80782c0 to 5dad068 Compare January 4, 2024 22:32

RaitoBezarius mentioned this pull request Jan 5, 2024

feat: in-memory assembling of the PE binaries #279

Draft

nikstur marked this pull request as draft January 21, 2024 12:30

nikstur reviewed Jan 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

RaitoBezarius added 3 commits January 25, 2024 03:13

flake: support fine-grained buildRustApp inside of the workspace wr…

9fa26ad

…t packages Now, it is possible to build any package of the workspace in a fine grained fashion.

tool(*): generalize signature mechanisms

cfa570d

In order to offer more flexible signature mechanisms in lanzaboote, we need to take a step back and offer a general PE signature trait. After this, we will be able to plug various different implementations.

RaitoBezarius force-pushed the signing-client branch from 5dad068 to 1020a04 Compare January 25, 2024 02:15

RaitoBezarius marked this pull request as ready for review January 25, 2024 02:15

RaitoBezarius force-pushed the signing-client branch from 1020a04 to d617150 Compare January 25, 2024 02:24

RaitoBezarius added 11 commits January 25, 2024 04:14

tool(systemd): rewire remote signature inside lzbt-systemd

ad41efa

It is now possible to use remote signature inside lzbt-systemd.

tool(lanzaboote-signd): init

2bb9ef7

This is an example server to perform remote signatures based on stub parameters provided.

nix/tests: extract into a lanzaboote library some common functions

5156521

Our lanzaboote integration tests are getting more and more sophisticated and ambitious. Let's extract them into a "lanzalib", so they can be used with multiple backends.

flake: build lanzasignd

acb69cc

We build lanzasignd now as part of the flake as an additional software we provide.

nix/modules/lanzasignd: init

1b41a2a

Introduces the Secure Boot remote signing server for NixOS.

nix/modules/lanzaboote: support remote signing

abac233

Lanzaboote boot module now supports using a potential remote signer server, but this support is limited to the lanzaboote bootables and not the fwupd ones.

nix/tests/remote-signing: init

83865c5

A simple test harness for remote signatures with lanzasignd.

tool(systemd): improve testing logic for overwrite unsigned images

99b5829

We didn't test if there *was* a signature, idempotency of removal of signatures (i.e. removing an non-existent signature is the identity operation) could fool us into believing we had a signed thing then not signed.

shared: detect when it's infeasible to sign a stub parameter

ba4880e

This is relevant for a remote signer who relies on the existence of store paths remotely, for example.

fix: do not emit a temporary initrd location if it's not needed

a8ca76f

We fabricated a lot of initrds which were exactly the same as the one in our store when we had no initrd secrets. This ends this practice.

RaitoBezarius force-pushed the signing-client branch from d617150 to 8d18d19 Compare January 25, 2024 03:16

RaitoBezarius mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2024

shared: generalize signature schemes #303

Merged

fhilgers mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2024

add option lanzaboote.generateKeysIfNotExist #384

Open

4 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: remote signing server and signature generalization #278

feat: remote signing server and signature generalization #278

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 3, 2024

nikstur commented Jan 21, 2024

nikstur Jan 21, 2024

RaitoBezarius Jan 21, 2024

nikstur Jan 21, 2024

RaitoBezarius Jan 23, 2024

nikstur Jan 21, 2024

RaitoBezarius Jan 23, 2024

nikstur Jan 21, 2024

RaitoBezarius Jan 21, 2024

nikstur Jan 21, 2024

RaitoBezarius Jan 23, 2024

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 25, 2024

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 25, 2024

blitz commented Feb 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RaitoBezarius commented Feb 10, 2024

feat: remote signing server and signature generalization #278

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: remote signing server and signature generalization #278

Conversation

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Initrd secrets are not supported by the remote signer

What were alternatives?

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 3, 2024

nikstur commented Jan 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 25, 2024

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 25, 2024

blitz commented Feb 10, 2024 • edited Loading

RaitoBezarius commented Feb 10, 2024

RaitoBezarius commented Jan 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

blitz commented Feb 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading