On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
>> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote:
>>>> So, anyone been thinking about this?  I have, and it's not pretty.
>>>>
>>>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to
>>>> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that I've
>>>> been wondering about.
>>>
>>> Sounds like something the Gentoo Foundation could do.
>>
>> I'm certainly not the only one who would be averse to paying Microsoft
>> any ransom money.
>
> And our refusal to pay for the signing affects precisely nobody except
> for our users, who will have to jump through an extra hoop to make
> their system work.
>
> On the flip side, having a simple way to use this infrastructure means
> that people who care about security can get a chain of trust from the
> firmware to the kernel (heck, maybe even userspace one day). This is
> something that is worth having as well.

I agree that security is a worthwhile goal. I just don't trust Microsoft.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead