Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Jun 2012 23:17 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu After Fedora, Ubuntu has now also announced how it's going to handle the nonsense called "Secure" Boot. The gist: they'll use the same key as Fedora, but they claim they can't use GRUB2. "In the event that a manufacturer makes a mistake and delivers a locked-down system with a GRUB 2 image signed by the Ubuntu key, we have not been able to find legal guidance that we wouldn't then be required by the terms of the GPLv3 to disclose our private key in order that users can install a modified boot loader. At that point our certificates would of course be revoked and everyone would end up worse off." So, they're going to use the more liberally licensed efilinux loader from Intel. Only the bootloader will be signed; the kernel will not.
Permalink for comment 523458
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo
by NuxRo on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by NuxRo"
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

"I can't remember when was the last time I heard about a "boot" infection (I'm not saying it doesn't happen).


Just a sidenote: Maybe you're intrested in reading this article regarding boot infections:

Marco Giuliani:
Mebromi: the first BIOS rootkit in the wild
http://blog.webroot.com/2011/09/13/mebromi-the-first-bios-rootkit-i...

But even with SecureBoot seen in all its glory and wonderfulness, there are many other attack vectors remaining. Security theatre as usual.
"

Thanks for the link. As I said I'm aware this kind of threats exist, but as someone said earlier, it's just like killing a mosquito with a pick-hammer. It is unreasonable.
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/stateme... sign it people!

It's the Nth time recently that this quote comes to mind:
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Reply Parent Score: 3