REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608
To avoid false-negative issue in check hash against dbx, both error
condition (as return value) and check result (as out parameter) of
IsSignatureFoundInDatabase() are added. So the caller of this function
will know exactly if a failure is caused by a black list hit or
other error happening, and enforce a more secure operation to prevent
secure boot from being bypassed. For a white list check (db), there's
no such necessity.
All intermediate results inside this function will be checked and
returned immediately upon any failure or error, like out-of-resource,
hash calculation error or certificate retrieval failure.
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608
To avoid false-negative issue in check hash against dbx, both error
condition (as return value) and check result (as out parameter) of
IsCertHashFoundInDatabase() are added. So the caller of this function
will know exactly if a failure is caused by a black list hit or
other error happening, and enforce a more secure operation to prevent
secure boot from being bypassed. For a white list check (db), there's
no such necessity.
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608
The dbx fetching code inside the while/for-loop causes code hard to
understand. Since there's no need to get dbx more than once, this patch
simplify the code logic by moving related code to be outside the while-
loop. db fetching code is also refined accordingly to reduce the indent
level of code.
More comments are also added or refined to explain more details.
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608
In timestamp check after the cert is found in db, the original code jumps
to 'Done' if any error happens in fetching dbx variable. At any of the
jump, VerifyStatus equals to TRUE, which means allowed-by-db. This should
not be allowed except to EFI_NOT_FOUND case (meaning dbx doesn't exist),
because it could be used to bypass timestamp check.
This patch add code to change VerifyStatus to FALSE in the case of memory
allocation failure and dbx fetching failure to avoid potential bypass
issue.
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1608
Normally two times of calling gRT->GetVariable() are needed to get
the data of a variable: get the variable size by passing zero variable
size, and then allocate enough memory and pass the correct variable size
and buffer.
But in the inner loop in IsAllowedByDb(), the DbxDataSize was not
initialized to zero before calling gRT->GetVariable(). It won't cause
problem if dbx does not exist. But it will give wrong result if dbx
exists and the DbxDataSize happens to be a small enough value. In this
situation, EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL will be returned. Then the result check
code followed will jump to 'Done', which is not correct because it's
actually the value expected.
if (Status == EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL) {
goto Done;
}
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
In case the signers' certificate stack, retrieved from the PE/COFF image's
Authenticode blob, has zero elements (=there are zero signer certificates),
then we should consider the image forbidden by DBX, not accepted by DBX.
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
The DxeTpmMeasureBootHandler and DxeTpm2MeasureBootHandler handlers
are SECURITY2_FILE_AUTHENTICATION_HANDLER prototype. This prototype
can not return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER.
The prototype documentation states it returns EFI_ACCESS_DENIED if:
"The file specified by File and FileBuffer did not authenticate,
and the platform policy dictates that the DXE Foundation may not
use File."
Correct the documentation, and add a early check, returning
EFI_ACCESS_DENIED when File is NULL.
Noticed while reviewing commit 6d57592740.
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daude <philmd@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
In DxeImageVerificationHandler(), we should return EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION
for a rejected image only if the platform sets
DEFER_EXECUTE_ON_SECURITY_VIOLATION as the policy for the image's source.
Otherwise, EFI_ACCESS_DENIED must be returned.
Right now, EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION is returned for all rejected images,
which is wrong -- it causes LoadImage() to hold on to rejected images (in
untrusted state), for further platform actions. However, if a platform
already set DENY_EXECUTE_ON_SECURITY_VIOLATION, the platform will not
expect the rejected image to stick around in memory (regardless of its
untrusted state).
Therefore, adhere to the platform policy in the return value of the
DxeImageVerificationHandler() function.
Furthermore, according to "32.4.2 Image Execution Information Table" in
the UEFI v2.8 spec, and considering that edk2 only supports (AuditMode==0)
at the moment:
> When AuditMode==0, if the image's signature is not found in the
> authorized database, or is found in the forbidden database, the image
> will not be started and instead, information about it will be placed in
> this table.
we have to store an EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_INFO record in both the "defer"
case and the "deny" case. Thus, the AddImageExeInfo() call is not being
made conditional on (Policy == DEFER_EXECUTE_ON_SECURITY_VIOLATION); the
documentation is updated instead.
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Ref: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2129
Fixes: 5db28a6753
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200116190705.18816-12-lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
[lersek@redhat.com: push with Mike's R-b due to Chinese New Year
Holiday: <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53429>; msgid
<d3fbb76dabed4e1987c512c328c82810@intel.com>]
It makes no sense to call AddImageExeInfo() with (Signature == NULL) and
(SignatureSize > 0). AddImageExeInfo() does not crash in such a case -- it
avoids the CopyMem() call --, but it creates an invalid
EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_INFO record. Namely, the
"EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_INFO.InfoSize" field includes "SignatureSize", but
the actual signature bytes are not filled in.
Document and ASSERT() this condition in AddImageExeInfo().
In DxeImageVerificationHandler(), zero out "SignatureListSize" if we set
"SignatureList" to NULL due to AllocateZeroPool() failure.
(Another approach could be to avoid calling AddImageExeInfo() completely,
in case AllocateZeroPool() fails. Unfortunately, the UEFI v2.8 spec does
not seem to state clearly whether a signature is mandatory in
EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_INFO, if the "Action" field is
EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_AUTH_SIG_FAILED or EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_AUTH_SIG_FOUND.
For now, the EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_INFO addition logic is not changed; we
only make sure that the record we add is not malformed.)
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Ref: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2129
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200116190705.18816-11-lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
[lersek@redhat.com: push with Mike's R-b due to Chinese New Year
Holiday: <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53429>; msgid
<d3fbb76dabed4e1987c512c328c82810@intel.com>]
Inside the "for" loop that scans the signatures of the image, we call
HashPeImageByType(), and assign its return value to "Status".
Beyond the immediate retval check, this assignment is useless (never
consumed). That's because a subsequent access to "Status" may only be one
of the following:
- the "Status" assignment when we call HashPeImageByType() in the next
iteration of the loop,
- the "Status = EFI_ACCESS_DENIED" assignment right after the final
"IsVerified" check.
To make it clear that the assignment is only useful for the immediate
HashPeImageByType() retval check, introduce a specific helper variable,
called "HashStatus".
This patch is a no-op, functionally.
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Ref: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2129
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200116190705.18816-5-lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
[lersek@redhat.com: push with Mike's R-b due to Chinese New Year
Holiday: <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53429>; msgid
<d3fbb76dabed4e1987c512c328c82810@intel.com>]
