| 1 |
On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to |
| 8 |
>>>> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that I've |
| 9 |
>>>> been wondering about. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Sounds like something the Gentoo Foundation could do. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I'm certainly not the only one who would be averse to paying Microsoft |
| 14 |
>> any ransom money. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> And our refusal to pay for the signing affects precisely nobody except |
| 17 |
> for our users, who will have to jump through an extra hoop to make |
| 18 |
> their system work. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> On the flip side, having a simple way to use this infrastructure means |
| 21 |
> that people who care about security can get a chain of trust from the |
| 22 |
> firmware to the kernel (heck, maybe even userspace one day). This is |
| 23 |
> something that is worth having as well. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I agree that security is a worthwhile goal. I just don't trust Microsoft. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 31 |
Gentoo developer |
| 32 |
Gentoo Qt project lead |
Archives