*countable infinities only

Matthew Garrett mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Sat Jun 2 19:12:56 UTC 2012

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:05:53PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > On 06/01/2012 01:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> Is UEFI Secure Boot really the only way to prevent the problem it attempts to
> >> solve, and if so, what about the plethora of BIOS hardware in the world
> >> today, still even shipping as new systems? They're all unacceptably exposed?
> >> Really?
> > 
> > That's the position Microsoft has taken, yes.
> Do you share this position that Microsoft has taken? If not, why not? Do you think there are alternatives to UEFI Secure Boot - including a possible spec change?

There are certainly a number of implementation details that could be 
changed that would make various things easier, and obviously we could do 
things that standardised user enrolment of keys, but I suspect any 
solution would end up looking broadly similar to this.

Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org

More information about the devel mailing list