1 |
On 15 June 2012 15:58, Richard Farina <sidhayn@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On 06/15/2012 03:12 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
3 |
>> On 15 June 2012 13:24, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 15 June 2012 10:33, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On 15 June 2012 12:45, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> On 15 June 2012 09:58, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>>>>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
8 |
>>>>>> |
9 |
>>>>>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to |
10 |
>>>>>> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that I've |
11 |
>>>>>> been wondering about. |
12 |
>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>> Sounds like something the Gentoo Foundation could do. |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> I'm certainly not the only one who would be averse to paying Microsoft |
16 |
>>>> any ransom money. |
17 |
>>> |
18 |
>>> And our refusal to pay for the signing affects precisely nobody except |
19 |
>>> for our users, who will have to jump through an extra hoop to make |
20 |
>>> their system work. |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>>> On the flip side, having a simple way to use this infrastructure means |
23 |
>>> that people who care about security can get a chain of trust from the |
24 |
>>> firmware to the kernel (heck, maybe even userspace one day). This is |
25 |
>>> something that is worth having as well. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> I agree that security is a worthwhile goal. I just don't trust Microsoft. |
28 |
>> |
29 |
> It's more of a "pay us or your system can't boot" that I'm opposed to. |
30 |
|
31 |
That's why I called it ransom money. I'm very opposed to that too. |
32 |
|
33 |
But if we're talking about security and a chain of trust, then Microsoft |
34 |
has no place in that either. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Saying "I just don't trust Microsoft" is second to "I just don't trust |
37 |
> corporations that extort money from me just so I can boot". I don't |
38 |
> care who we are paying, I'm offended by the idea. If users can't build |
39 |
> their own fully functional boot loader that's an issue. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> I'm all for the signed "work-around signatures" idea as it is the least |
42 |
> objectionable... if such a thing is even possible. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> -Zero |
45 |
> |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Cheers, |
51 |
|
52 |
Ben | yngwin |
53 |
Gentoo developer |
54 |
Gentoo Qt project lead |