| 1 |
On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
| 7 |
>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to |
| 9 |
>>>>> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that I've |
| 10 |
>>>>> been wondering about. |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> Sounds like something the Gentoo Foundation could do. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> I'm certainly not the only one who would be averse to paying Microsoft |
| 15 |
>>> any ransom money. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> And our refusal to pay for the signing affects precisely nobody except |
| 18 |
>> for our users, who will have to jump through an extra hoop to make |
| 19 |
>> their system work. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> On the flip side, having a simple way to use this infrastructure means |
| 22 |
>> that people who care about security can get a chain of trust from the |
| 23 |
>> firmware to the kernel (heck, maybe even userspace one day). This is |
| 24 |
>> something that is worth having as well. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I agree that security is a worthwhile goal. I just don't trust Microsoft. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
It's more of a "pay us or your system can't boot" that I'm opposed to. |
| 29 |
Saying "I just don't trust Microsoft" is second to "I just don't trust |
| 30 |
corporations that extort money from me just so I can boot". I don't |
| 31 |
care who we are paying, I'm offended by the idea. If users can't build |
| 32 |
their own fully functional boot loader that's an issue. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'm all for the signed "work-around signatures" idea as it is the least |
| 35 |
objectionable... if such a thing is even possible. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-Zero |
Archives