Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Supporting third-party keys in a Secure Boot world

Filed under
Linux

It's fairly straightforward to boot a UEFI Secure Boot system using something like Shim or the Linux Foundation's loader, and for distributions using either the LF loader or the generic version of Shim that's pretty much all you need to care about. The physically-present end user has had to explicitly install new keys or hashes, and that means that you no longer need to care about Microsoft's security policies or (assuming there's no exploitable flaws in the bootloader itself) fear any kind of revocation.

But what about if you're a distribution that cares about booting without the user having to install keys? There's several reasons to want that (convenience for naive users, ability to netboot, that kind of thing), but it has the downside that your system can now be used as an attack vector against other operating systems. Do you care about that? It depends how you weigh the risks. First, someone would have to use your system to attack another. Second, Microsoft would have to care enough to revoke your signature.

rest here




More in Tux Machines

4MLinux 12.0 Beta Arrives with Better Support for Watching and Downloading YouTube Videos

Zbigniew Konojacki had the pleasure of announcing today, March 28, on his Twitter account that the development cycle towards the 4MLinux 12.0 computer operating system has started with the Beta release for the 4MLinux Allinone Edition, 4MLinux Core, and 4MLinux distributions. Read more

Gorgeous Live Voyager X Distro Brings Xfce 4.12 to Ubuntu 14.04 LTS - Video and Screenshot Tour

On March 27, 2015, French developer Rodolphe Bachelart, the creator of the Live Voyager series of GNU/Linux distributions based on Ubuntu/Xubuntu, was proud to announce the immediate availability for download of a new computer operating system, Live Voyager X 14.04.4 LTS. Read more

Head 2 Head: Android OS vs. Chrome OS

A large part of Google’s OS success hasn’t been because of its awesomeness. No. Frankly, we think nothing speaks louder than the almighty dollar in this world. But both are “free,” right? So this is tie? Not really. Although Android is technically free since Google doesn’t charge device makers for it, there are costs associated with getting devices “certified.” Oh, yeah, and then there’s Apple and Microsoft, both of which get healthy payouts from device makers through patent lawsuits. Microsoft reportedly makes far more from Android sales than Windows Phone sales. You just generally don’t see the price because it’s abstracted by carriers. Chrome OS, on the other hand, actually is pretty much free. A top-ofthe-line Chromebook is $280, while a top-of-the-line Android phone full retail is usually $600. We’re giving this one to Chrome OS because if it’s generally cheaper for the builder, it’s cheaper for you. Read more