GRUB2 security changes in Fedora

[…]Include Grub’s “verify,” “cryptodisk,” “luks” and <others here> modules in grubx64.efi of the ‘grub2-efi-x64’ package.  Users utilising secure boot functionality on the UEFI platform cannot insert modules that aren’t in grubx64.efi. Paradoxically, this means that security-conscious users cannot use grub’s verify module, or employ (near) full disk encryption using cryptodisk and luks. The security benefits of signature verification would reach more users if Fedora automated it by incorporating the process into grub2-mkconfig. For the long-term, to grant flexibility with grub2 modules on secure boot instances, it may be advisable to sign the .mod files in the ‘grub2-efi-x64-modules’ package, modify grub2-mkconfig (or -install) to copy the necessary modules into the EFI partition when required by the user’s configuration and then allow inserting of signed modules in secure boot instances.[…]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Include_security_modules_in_efi_Grub2

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GRUB2-New-EFI-Modules-For-F31

 

Fedora: Flicker Free Boot

Fedora 30 now contains all changes changes for a fully Flicker Free Boot. Last week a new version of plymouth landed which implements the new theme for this and also includes a much improved offline-updates experience, following this design. At boot the display will seamlessly transit from the firmware boot-splash into the new plymouth theme, which uses the firmware boot-splash as background[…]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlickerFreeBoot

https://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/20119.html

UEFI/SMM stability and performance improvements in QEMU 2.9 and edk2/OVMF git 296153c5, included with Fedora 26

Fedora 26 just released, and it ships with QEMU v2.9 and an updated OVMF, which adds SMM security improvements. Quoting email from Laszlo Ersek of Red Hat:

QEMU 2.9 is part of Fedora 26. The full changelog for QEMU 2.9 is here:

http://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/2.9

The broadcast SMI feature is just one tiny line in the huge list (and it only mentions the generic negotiation feature, not the specific broadcast one):

“The q35 machine type offers SMI feature negotiation to interested guest firmware.”

QEMU v2.9 is important for running the SMM driver stack of edk2 — more precisely, machine type “pc-q35-2.9” is important — because it offers negotiable SMI broadcast, i.e., where one VCPU writes to ioport 0xB2, and the SMI is raised synchronously on all VCPUs. See:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1412313 [ovmf]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1412327 [qemu]

QEMU v2.10 — more precisely, machine type “pc-q35-2.10” — will bring another SMM-related improvement, although not as critical as SMI broadcast. (And I guess it will be available in Fedora 27.) We call it “extended TSEG”, and it allows the QEMU user to specify more than 8MB SMRAM on the cmdline. This is important if you have a huge number of VCPUs, or huge guest RAM (into the TB range) because those things have a linearly growing SMRAM footprint (albeit with small constant factors). See:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447027 [qemu and ovmf, both committed]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469338 [libvirt, under design]

The patches (qemu and ovmf) committed for BZ#1447027 above solve the “many VCPUs” question. The “huge guest RAM” question needs more platform code in OVMF; the patch for that is on edk2-devel, pending review:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468526 [ovmf, pending review]

More info:
https://getfedora.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Management_Mode

Secure Boot strength varies by Linux implementation

[UPDATE, with input from readers, see EOM. Thanks!]

UEFI Secure Boot is a build-time feature of UEFI that helps secure the boot process from some boot-time attacks, optionally using TPM hardware if available. Secure Boot became widespread on Windows hardware during Windows 8 timeframe. Windows aside, other operating systems have to support UEFI Secure Boot. Linux supports UEFI and UEFI Secure Boot (as does FreeBSD). Different Linux distributions have different Linux kernels, with different versions, different patchsets, and different build-time directives enabled. So, Fedora’s Linux kernel is different than SuSE’s Linux kernel, etc.

I saw a recent comment from a UEFI security researcher who had been building a Linux liveboot CD and running CHIPSEC — which includes a native Linux kernel driver, and running it on UEFI systems with Secure Boot enabled.

“Ubuntu appears to have shim and do secure boot but not enforce kernel module signing.”

This Ubuntu behaviour was a change in behaviour from the Fedora-based systems the researcher was used to using. I was curious about the difference in distros w/r/t enforcing kernel module signing. So I asked on the FirmWare TestSuite (FWTS) list if there was a test for this. Roderick W. Smith of Canonical — and author of rEFInd boot manager and the definitive Linux boot loader/manager reference on RodsBooks.com — replied clarifying the situation:

“Yes, that’s correct. Ubuntu’s kernel doesn’t attempt to enforce Secure Boot policy beyond the main kernel file; once the kernel’s loaded, it’s possible to load an unsigned kernel module. Fedora, as you inferred, does require signing of kernel modules. Fedora’s approach is arguably more secure, since an attacker can’t load a malicious kernel module once the system has booted, but leads to problems with third-party kernel modules, like the in-kernel portions of nVidia and ATI/AMD video drivers. FWIW, the decision to do it this way was made before I joined Canonical, so I’m not sure who made the decision.”

Ivan of Canonical replied with more information:

“On Linux, two stage booting has implemented for secureboot. First stage is firmware boot to shim and then shim will take care to check signature and boot with grub and kernel. Booting with/without kernel signed is under shim and grub implementation, Ubuntu provides the singed kernel in official releases, and would like to keep the flexibility for user to build their kernel, so Ubuntu doesn’t block booting when user uses unsigned kernel.”

The security researcher who reported this speculated that Canonical’s policy may be due to them not wanting to put their distro signature (or perhaps worry about license issues in doing so) on some 3rd party (non open) binary.

As I understand things, this is beyond the strict “UEFI Secure Boot” definition, and on to what OS-centric post-UEFI Secure Boot security techniques it will implement. I guess some call it “OS Secure Boot” to differentiate it from “UEFI Secure Boot”, but I don’t see any formal definition for that term.

I wish there was more precise information about Secure Boot implementation from each Linux distro. System administrators and technical support engineers will need to know these nuances, as will security researchers. Pehaps Linux Foundation or UEFI Forum — or some Wikipedian(s) — could help with a comparison of Secure Boot on different OSes? Perhaps FWTS or CHIPSEC could have a test to check? Perhaps the UEFI Forum could note these nuances at their next plugfest, and setup test cases combinining Linux OSVs with a test case that loads dynamically load native OS drivers: perhaps using CHIPSEC as the test case may suffice, it loads a native helper driver.

So, don’t just look at if Secure Boot is enabled or not, look at what Linux OS you’re using, and how it implements Secure Boot. And remember attackers are also making this choice, and looking for your softer Linux targets, so be more careful when using those systems.

——-

Updated information:

The reason this issue came up is that the researcher was using Intel CHIPSEC, which when run on Linux it uses a Linux kernel module. Unlike most drivers, which get loaded when OS initializes, then stay loaded, the CHIPSEC driver behaves differently. The CHIPSEC userland Python app compiles the kernel module, and loads the module when it starts, then unloads the driver when it finishes (because the driver enables risky things, see it’s warning.txt). On Fedora, this kind of CHIPSEC driver loading behavior will not work, with Secure Boot enabled, until you setup moklist and sign the module. By contrast with Fedora, on Ubuntu, CHIPSEC is able to load the unsigned driver without the user having to change anything (convenience). Here’s more information on how Fedora does it’s module signing process:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/22/html/System_Administrators_Guide/sect-kernel-module-authentication.html

Fedora proposal for UEFI 2.5 Capsule Update support

As reported on Fedora devel-announce and on Softpedia, a proposal for Red Hat’s Fedora has been added to support UEFI Capuse Updates via UEFI 2.5’s ESRT.

“This adds the ability to perform updates of system firmware, as well as some peripheral firmware, on machines supporting the UEFI Capsule Update mechanism and UEFI 2.5’s “ESRT” feature. Right now this is generic support—the number of machines for which we actually have firmware updates available is very small, as the underlying technology is quite new—and it doesn’t include any actual delivery mechanism for such firmware images. But if they’re put at the right place for fwupd to notice them, and the system supports the right features, they’ll show up as updates in gnome-software.”

It will very be interesting to see how different distributions expose firmware updates to users.

More Information:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fedora-23-Linux-Might-Allows-Users-to-Perform-Firmware-Updates-on-UEFI-Machines-483390.shtml
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2015-June/001595.html
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemFirmwareUpdates