| .. _embargoed_hardware_issues: | |
| Embargoed hardware issues | |
| ========================= | |
| Scope | |
| ----- | |
| Hardware issues which result in security problems are a different category | |
| of security bugs than pure software bugs which only affect the Linux | |
| kernel. | |
| Hardware issues like Meltdown, Spectre, L1TF etc. must be treated | |
| differently because they usually affect all Operating Systems ("OS") and | |
| therefore need coordination across different OS vendors, distributions, | |
| hardware vendors and other parties. For some of the issues, software | |
| mitigations can depend on microcode or firmware updates, which need further | |
| coordination. | |
| .. _Contact: | |
| Contact | |
| ------- | |
| The Linux kernel hardware security team is separate from the regular Linux | |
| kernel security team. | |
| The team only handles the coordination of embargoed hardware security | |
| issues. Reports of pure software security bugs in the Linux kernel are not | |
| handled by this team and the reporter will be guided to contact the regular | |
| Linux kernel security team (:ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/ | |
| <securitybugs>`) instead. | |
| The team can be contacted by email at <hardware-security@kernel.org>. This | |
| is a private list of security officers who will help you to coordinate an | |
| issue according to our documented process. | |
| The list is encrypted and email to the list can be sent by either PGP or | |
| S/MIME encrypted and must be signed with the reporter's PGP key or S/MIME | |
| certificate. The list's PGP key and S/MIME certificate are available from | |
| the following URLs: | |
| - PGP: https://www.kernel.org/static/files/hardware-security.asc | |
| - S/MIME: https://www.kernel.org/static/files/hardware-security.crt | |
| While hardware security issues are often handled by the affected hardware | |
| vendor, we welcome contact from researchers or individuals who have | |
| identified a potential hardware flaw. | |
| Hardware security officers | |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |
| The current team of hardware security officers: | |
| - Linus Torvalds (Linux Foundation Fellow) | |
| - Greg Kroah-Hartman (Linux Foundation Fellow) | |
| - Thomas Gleixner (Linux Foundation Fellow) | |
| Operation of mailing-lists | |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |
| The encrypted mailing-lists which are used in our process are hosted on | |
| Linux Foundation's IT infrastructure. By providing this service, members | |
| of Linux Foundation's IT operations personnel technically have the | |
| ability to access the embargoed information, but are obliged to | |
| confidentiality by their employment contract. Linux Foundation IT | |
| personnel are also responsible for operating and managing the rest of | |
| kernel.org infrastructure. | |
| The Linux Foundation's current director of IT Project infrastructure is | |
| Konstantin Ryabitsev. | |
| Non-disclosure agreements | |
| ------------------------- | |
| The Linux kernel hardware security team is not a formal body and therefore | |
| unable to enter into any non-disclosure agreements. The kernel community | |
| is aware of the sensitive nature of such issues and offers a Memorandum of | |
| Understanding instead. | |
| Memorandum of Understanding | |
| --------------------------- | |
| The Linux kernel community has a deep understanding of the requirement to | |
| keep hardware security issues under embargo for coordination between | |
| different OS vendors, distributors, hardware vendors and other parties. | |
| The Linux kernel community has successfully handled hardware security | |
| issues in the past and has the necessary mechanisms in place to allow | |
| community compliant development under embargo restrictions. | |
| The Linux kernel community has a dedicated hardware security team for | |
| initial contact, which oversees the process of handling such issues under | |
| embargo rules. | |
| The hardware security team identifies the developers (domain experts) who | |
| will form the initial response team for a particular issue. The initial | |
| response team can bring in further developers (domain experts) to address | |
| the issue in the best technical way. | |
| All involved developers pledge to adhere to the embargo rules and to keep | |
| the received information confidential. Violation of the pledge will lead to | |
| immediate exclusion from the current issue and removal from all related | |
| mailing-lists. In addition, the hardware security team will also exclude | |
| the offender from future issues. The impact of this consequence is a highly | |
| effective deterrent in our community. In case a violation happens the | |
| hardware security team will inform the involved parties immediately. If you | |
| or anyone becomes aware of a potential violation, please report it | |
| immediately to the Hardware security officers. | |
| Process | |
| ^^^^^^^ | |
| Due to the globally distributed nature of Linux kernel development, | |
| face-to-face meetings are almost impossible to address hardware security | |
| issues. Phone conferences are hard to coordinate due to time zones and | |
| other factors and should be only used when absolutely necessary. Encrypted | |
| email has been proven to be the most effective and secure communication | |
| method for these types of issues. | |
| Start of Disclosure | |
| """"""""""""""""""" | |
| Disclosure starts by contacting the Linux kernel hardware security team by | |
| email. This initial contact should contain a description of the problem and | |
| a list of any known affected hardware. If your organization builds or | |
| distributes the affected hardware, we encourage you to also consider what | |
| other hardware could be affected. | |
| The hardware security team will provide an incident-specific encrypted | |
| mailing-list which will be used for initial discussion with the reporter, | |
| further disclosure and coordination. | |
| The hardware security team will provide the disclosing party a list of | |
| developers (domain experts) who should be informed initially about the | |
| issue after confirming with the developers that they will adhere to this | |
| Memorandum of Understanding and the documented process. These developers | |
| form the initial response team and will be responsible for handling the | |
| issue after initial contact. The hardware security team is supporting the | |
| response team, but is not necessarily involved in the mitigation | |
| development process. | |
| While individual developers might be covered by a non-disclosure agreement | |
| via their employer, they cannot enter individual non-disclosure agreements | |
| in their role as Linux kernel developers. They will, however, agree to | |
| adhere to this documented process and the Memorandum of Understanding. | |
| The disclosing party should provide a list of contacts for all other | |
| entities who have already been, or should be, informed about the issue. | |
| This serves several purposes: | |
| - The list of disclosed entities allows communication accross the | |
| industry, e.g. other OS vendors, HW vendors, etc. | |
| - The disclosed entities can be contacted to name experts who should | |
| participate in the mitigation development. | |
| - If an expert which is required to handle an issue is employed by an | |
| listed entity or member of an listed entity, then the response teams can | |
| request the disclosure of that expert from that entity. This ensures | |
| that the expert is also part of the entity's response team. | |
| Disclosure | |
| """""""""" | |
| The disclosing party provides detailed information to the initial response | |
| team via the specific encrypted mailing-list. | |
| From our experience the technical documentation of these issues is usually | |
| a sufficient starting point and further technical clarification is best | |
| done via email. | |
| Mitigation development | |
| """""""""""""""""""""" | |
| The initial response team sets up an encrypted mailing-list or repurposes | |
| an existing one if appropriate. | |
| Using a mailing-list is close to the normal Linux development process and | |
| has been successfully used in developing mitigations for various hardware | |
| security issues in the past. | |
| The mailing-list operates in the same way as normal Linux development. | |
| Patches are posted, discussed and reviewed and if agreed on applied to a | |
| non-public git repository which is only accessible to the participating | |
| developers via a secure connection. The repository contains the main | |
| development branch against the mainline kernel and backport branches for | |
| stable kernel versions as necessary. | |
| The initial response team will identify further experts from the Linux | |
| kernel developer community as needed. Bringing in experts can happen at any | |
| time of the development process and needs to be handled in a timely manner. | |
| If an expert is employed by or member of an entity on the disclosure list | |
| provided by the disclosing party, then participation will be requested from | |
| the relevant entity. | |
| If not, then the disclosing party will be informed about the experts | |
| participation. The experts are covered by the Memorandum of Understanding | |
| and the disclosing party is requested to acknowledge the participation. In | |
| case that the disclosing party has a compelling reason to object, then this | |
| objection has to be raised within five work days and resolved with the | |
| incident team immediately. If the disclosing party does not react within | |
| five work days this is taken as silent acknowledgement. | |
| After acknowledgement or resolution of an objection the expert is disclosed | |
| by the incident team and brought into the development process. | |
| Coordinated release | |
| """"""""""""""""""" | |
| The involved parties will negotiate the date and time where the embargo | |
| ends. At that point the prepared mitigations are integrated into the | |
| relevant kernel trees and published. | |
| While we understand that hardware security issues need coordinated embargo | |
| time, the embargo time should be constrained to the minimum time which is | |
| required for all involved parties to develop, test and prepare the | |
| mitigations. Extending embargo time artificially to meet conference talk | |
| dates or other non-technical reasons is creating more work and burden for | |
| the involved developers and response teams as the patches need to be kept | |
| up to date in order to follow the ongoing upstream kernel development, | |
| which might create conflicting changes. | |
| CVE assignment | |
| """""""""""""" | |
| Neither the hardware security team nor the initial response team assign | |
| CVEs, nor are CVEs required for the development process. If CVEs are | |
| provided by the disclosing party they can be used for documentation | |
| purposes. | |
| Process ambassadors | |
| ------------------- | |
| For assistance with this process we have established ambassadors in various | |
| organizations, who can answer questions about or provide guidance on the | |
| reporting process and further handling. Ambassadors are not involved in the | |
| disclosure of a particular issue, unless requested by a response team or by | |
| an involved disclosed party. The current ambassadors list: | |
| ============= ======================================================== | |
| ARM Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com> | |
| AMD Tom Lendacky <tom.lendacky@amd.com> | |
| IBM Z Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> | |
| IBM Power Anton Blanchard <anton@linux.ibm.com> | |
| Intel Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> | |
| Qualcomm Trilok Soni <tsoni@codeaurora.org> | |
| Microsoft James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com> | |
| VMware | |
| Xen Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> | |
| Canonical John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> | |
| Debian Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> | |
| Oracle Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> | |
| Red Hat Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> | |
| SUSE Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> | |
| Amazon | |
| Google Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> | |
| ============= ======================================================== | |
| If you want your organization to be added to the ambassadors list, please | |
| contact the hardware security team. The nominated ambassador has to | |
| understand and support our process fully and is ideally well connected in | |
| the Linux kernel community. | |
| Encrypted mailing-lists | |
| ----------------------- | |
| We use encrypted mailing-lists for communication. The operating principle | |
| of these lists is that email sent to the list is encrypted either with the | |
| list's PGP key or with the list's S/MIME certificate. The mailing-list | |
| software decrypts the email and re-encrypts it individually for each | |
| subscriber with the subscriber's PGP key or S/MIME certificate. Details | |
| about the mailing-list software and the setup which is used to ensure the | |
| security of the lists and protection of the data can be found here: | |
| https://korg.wiki.kernel.org/userdoc/remail. | |
| List keys | |
| ^^^^^^^^^ | |
| For initial contact see :ref:`Contact`. For incident specific mailing-lists | |
| the key and S/MIME certificate are conveyed to the subscribers by email | |
| sent from the specific list. | |
| Subscription to incident specific lists | |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |
| Subscription is handled by the response teams. Disclosed parties who want | |
| to participate in the communication send a list of potential subscribers to | |
| the response team so the response team can validate subscription requests. | |
| Each subscriber needs to send a subscription request to the response team | |
| by email. The email must be signed with the subscriber's PGP key or S/MIME | |
| certificate. If a PGP key is used, it must be available from a public key | |
| server and is ideally connected to the Linux kernel's PGP web of trust. See | |
| also: https://www.kernel.org/signature.html. | |
| The response team verifies that the subscriber request is valid and adds | |
| the subscriber to the list. After subscription the subscriber will receive | |
| email from the mailing-list which is signed either with the list's PGP key | |
| or the list's S/MIME certificate. The subscriber's email client can extract | |
| the PGP key or the S/MIME certificate from the signature so the subscriber | |
| can send encrypted email to the list. | |