[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 10:56:40PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 13:46 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I... what? Our signed bootloader will boot our signed kernel without any
> > physically present end-user involvement. We therefore need to make it
> > as difficult as practically possible for an attacker to use our signed
> > bootloader and our signed kernel as an attack vector against other
> > operating systems, which includes worrying about hibernate and kexec. If
> > people want to support this use case then patches to deal with that need
> > to be present in the upstream kernel.
> Right, but what I'm telling you is that by deciding to allow automatic
> first boot, you're causing the windows attack vector problem. You could
> easily do a present user test only on first boot which would eliminate
> it. Instead, we get all of this.

Your definition of "Best practices" is "Automated installs are
impossible"? Have you ever actually spoken to a user?

Matthew Garrett |

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-04 06:01    [W:0.240 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site