Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Nov 2012 12:36:38 +0000 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support |
| |
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 09:20:17AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 13:52 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > You don't get to punt on making the kernel secure by simply asserting > > that some other system can be secure instead. The chain of trust needs > > to go all the way back - if your security model is based on all installs > > needing a physically present end user, all installs need a physically > > present end user. That's not acceptable, so we need a different security > > model. > > I didn't. I advocated a simple security model which you asserted > wouldn't allow unattended installs, so I explained how they could be > done.
You've explained that a hypothetical piece of software could handle key provisioning without providing any explanation for how it would be able to do so in a secure manner.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |