1 |
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:51:04PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:20:38 +0200 |
3 |
> Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Am 16.06.2012 19:51, schrieb Michał Górny: |
6 |
> > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:12 +0200 |
7 |
> > > Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > >> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan: |
10 |
> > >>> Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: |
11 |
> > >>> |
12 |
> > >>>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not |
13 |
> > >>>> pretty. |
14 |
> > >>>> |
15 |
> > >>>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry |
16 |
> > >>>> about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? |
17 |
> > >>>> |
18 |
> > >>>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay |
19 |
> > >>>> Microsoft to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the |
20 |
> > >>>> non-technical side that I've been wondering about. |
21 |
> > >>> |
22 |
> > >>> I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this |
23 |
> > >>> myself. |
24 |
> > >>> |
25 |
> > >>> I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating |
26 |
> > >>> a user controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't |
27 |
> > >>> have a problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate |
28 |
> > >>> UEFI, presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe |
29 |
> > >>> we're fine as if a user can't figure out how to disable that |
30 |
> > >>> option on their (x86/amd64) platform, they're hardly likely to be |
31 |
> > >>> a good match for gentoo in any case. |
32 |
> > >>> |
33 |
> > >> |
34 |
> > >> As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot |
35 |
> > >> with Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means |
36 |
> > >> I can no longer build my own kernel. |
37 |
> > > |
38 |
> > > It doesn't. It's just a very long wooden fence; you just didn't find |
39 |
> > > the hole yet. |
40 |
> > > |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > Oh come on! That's FUD and you know it. If not, did you even look at |
43 |
> > the specs and working principle? |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Could you answer the following question: |
46 |
> |
47 |
> 1. How does it increase security? |
48 |
|
49 |
Non-signed bootloaders and kernels will not run. |
50 |
|
51 |
> 2. What happens if, say, your bootloader is compromised? |
52 |
|
53 |
And how would this happen? Your bootloader would not run. |
54 |
|
55 |
> 3. What happens if the machine signing the blobs is compromised? |
56 |
|
57 |
So, who's watching the watchers, right? Come on, this is getting |
58 |
looney. |
59 |
|
60 |
greg k-h |