Sascha Cunz <sascha-ml@...> writes:

> You've said yourself, that "some removable media might not require signatures" 
> in order to boot. Well, if that is the case, then isn't this defeating the 
> whole point of Secure Boot at that stage?

Not necessarily. As has been stated previously, secure boot is not
intended to protect against an attacker who has physical access. So even
if allowing boot from removable media, it does protect against malware
which corrupts/infects the hard drive boot image.