lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support
From
Date
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 17:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 05:48:31PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:52:44PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > > The first question is how many compromises do you need. Without
> > > > co-operation from windows, you don't get to install something in the
> > > > boot system, so if you're looking for a single compromise vector, the
> > > > only realistic attack is to trick the user into booting a hacked linux
> > > > system from USB or DVD.
> > >
> > > You run a binary. It pops up a box saying "Windows needs your permission
> > > to continue", just like almost every other Windows binary that's any
> > > use. Done.
> >
> > And if all the loaders do some type of present user test on a virgin
> > system, how do you propose to get that message up there?
>
> ? That's the message generated by the Windows access control mechanism
> when you run a binary that requests elevated privileges.

So that's a windows attack vector using a windows binary? I can't really
see how it's relevant to the secure boot discussion then.

James





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-02 19:21    [W:0.151 / U:0.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site