Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add functionality similar to get_security_info command in esptool #704

Open
jessebraham opened this issue Nov 12, 2024 · 4 comments
Open
Labels
feature request Request for new feature/functionality
Milestone

Comments

@jessebraham
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@jessebraham jessebraham added this to the v4 milestone Jan 9, 2025
@jessebraham jessebraham added the feature request Request for new feature/functionality label Jan 9, 2025
@ivmarkov
Copy link
Contributor

ivmarkov commented Jan 13, 2025

Nice to have, but I think we need the full-blown capability of espefuse.py instead. Otherwise, there is actually no way to burn the SecureBoot V2 public key signature into efuse in the first place, and this is the one single thing the bootloader cannot do automatically "on first boot". But also in general, relying on the bootloader-compiled-with-encryption-and/or-secure-boot-enabled to auto-generate encryption XTS key, burn it, encrypt all plaintext bootloader/part table/factory image on first boot is super dangerous (IMO).

Espressif recommends this workflow instead, which relies on explicit efuse burns to enable both secure boot and encryption. Much more predictable. And allows for sub-sequent re-flashing of the encrypted/secure-booted device, as long as you keep the encryption key and the secure boot V2 private key around, and the ROM downloader enabled (in secure mode or not).

@jessebraham
Copy link
Member Author

This was opened because there have been change with how chip detection is performed with newer devices (e.g. for the P4) and detecting via magic value does not work reliably with all devices. I did not consider any other application of this functionality when opening the issue.

@ivmarkov
Copy link
Contributor

This was opened because there have been change with how chip detection is performed with newer devices (e.g. for the P4) and detecting via magic value does not work reliably with all devices. I did not consider any other application of this functionality when opening the issue.

Fair enough!

@jessebraham
Copy link
Member Author

I probably should have mentioned that in the original comment 😅

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request Request for new feature/functionality
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants