*countable infinities only
greno at verizon.net
Fri Jun 1 19:30:54 UTC 2012
On 06/01/2012 03:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:14 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> I just read through the MS docs on SecureBoot and this is the biggest Rube-Goldberg machine.
>> I could not think of a nastier solution to a problem than what they've dreamt up here.
>> The whole problem they are trying to solve is that of booting only known-good code.
>> That would be much easier accomplished by having the OS reside on a read-only device that could only be written to by
>> the user actively using hardware to enable the write during installation.
>> That would create a system where there was no possible programmatic means of corrupting the OS during normal operation.
>> No signatures, no crypto-databases, or other SecureBoot gobbledy-gook needed.
>> To implement this would require only that new systems support two drives, one with controllable-by-user
>> read-write-controller interface for storing the OS.
>> Forensic firms have been using these types of read-write controllable drive interfaces for years. Hardware already exists.
> What is your practical point?
My practical point is that Microsoft chose this particular solution not as the best way to solve the issue of booting
known-good code but as a way of impacting Linux and it whole concept of software freedoms.
I don't think anybody in the Linux community should be supporting this SecureBoot "solution" in any way, shape or form.
More information about the devel