Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:51:18
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] UEFI secure boot and Gentoo by Richard Farina
On 15 June 2012 15:58, Richard Farina <sidhayn@×××××.com> wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> 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. >> > It's more of a "pay us or your system can't boot" that I'm opposed to.
That's why I called it ransom money. I'm very opposed to that too. But if we're talking about security and a chain of trust, then Microsoft has no place in that either.
> Saying "I just don't trust Microsoft" is second to "I just don't trust > corporations that extort money from me just so I can boot".  I don't > care who we are paying, I'm offended by the idea.  If users can't build > their own fully functional boot loader that's an issue. > > I'm all for the signed "work-around signatures" idea as it is the least > objectionable... if such a thing is even possible. > > -Zero >
-- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead