| 1 |
Sascha Cunz <sascha-ml@×××××××××.org> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> You've said yourself, that "some removable media might not require signatures" |
| 4 |
> in order to boot. Well, if that is the case, then isn't this defeating the |
| 5 |
> whole point of Secure Boot at that stage? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Not necessarily. As has been stated previously, secure boot is not |
| 8 |
intended to protect against an attacker who has physical access. So even |
| 9 |
if allowing boot from removable media, it does protect against malware |
| 10 |
which corrupts/infects the hard drive boot image. |
Archives