*countable infinities only
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