[PATCH v2 15/17] crypto: concatenate fit development certificate with private key

[Jonas Rebmann]

Hi Sascha,

On 2025-11-04 11:11, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 12:41:14PM +0100, Jonas Rebmann wrote:
>> Hi Sascha,
>>
>> On 2025-11-03 11:08, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 07:03:20PM +0100, Jonas Rebmann wrote:
>>>> Merge the exemplary keys copied in from [1] into a single pem file,
>>>> in a manner similar to test/self/development_rsa2048.pem for consistency
>>>> and to reduce clutter a bit.
>>>>
>>>> While at it, rename them from "fit-" to "snakeoil-" as they are not only
>>>> used for fit, but also for tlv integration tests, and to indicate more
>>>> clearly that these are publicly known keys.
>>>
>>> Should we rather keep the "fit" name and add another key for tlv
>>> integration tests?
>>
>> I'd rather not add more 'compromised' keys to the repo. What would be
>> the gain?
> 
> My thinking was that with this we could make sure that during tests
> actually a key from the desired keyring is used.
> >> I think naming it snakeoil gives it the warning it deserves. We should
>> make it hard for anyone to confuse our CI/Development keys with their
>> production keys.
> 
> Indeed. I just don't like the term "snakeoil" here.
> 
>  From wikipedia:
> 
> "Snake oil" is a term used to describe deceptive marketing, health care fraud, or a scam.
> 
> We don't do anything like this here. We're not trying to sell snake oil.
> 
> I am open for something like "testing" or "development".

I thought this to be a conventional name specifically for keypairs
shipped with software like the debian packages qemu-efi-aarch64 and
ovmf:
https://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=contents&keywords=snakeoil&mode=filename&suite=stable&arch=any

The ssl-cert debian package runs make-ssl-cert generate-default-snakeoil
in its postinst script:

    Invoked with "generate-default-snakeoil", it will generate
    /etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem and /etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-
    snakeoil.key.

Other packages do similar things.

I understand "snakeoil" in this context as: 'It may look like it heals
your confidentiality and integrity pains but will be greatly ineffective
for this, don't be deceived!'

> Also we might want to add a runtime message like:
> 
> "WARNING: This barebox binary contains well known keys and is unsecure"

This is a good idea and I'd also suggest in the future to write pytest
fixtures that let us generate testing key material on the fly. It seems
like a task for a different day so would you be ok with leaving it as-is
for now?

Regards,
Jonas

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Jonas Rebmann               |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |