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.
Thread beginning with comment 523417
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Lazarus
by Alfman on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 02:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by Lazarus"
Member since:


"The only thing that would be better IMO is for the option for disabling EFI secure boot be mandatory and not be to terribly different from vendor to vendor."

Please please please don't forget about allowing us to control the keys in our own hardware. I don't think it's acceptable *just* to be able to disable secure boot in UEFI, it should be mandatory that owners can choose to enable secure boot for any operating system that supports it.

Unfortunately the path we are now on seems to be headed in the direction where microsoft, having it's keys embedded in all consumer machines, will become the defacto secure boot gatekeeper and secure boot enabled alternative operating systems have no choice but to become subordinates within microsoft's chain of trust. We already see it beginning.

To top it all off, secure boot is even less secure now because owners don't know who's code is running under microsoft's keys. It's very likely that malware will eventually get a key under MS's $100/year program. Sure, widespread worms will have their keys revoked after the fact. But narrowly targeted attacks are likely to remain undetected because the owners are kept entirely out of the loop, we're never informed by secure boot that something bad is afoot with our boot chain - secure boot my ass!

Being able to disable it is important, but I'm disappointed this crap security standard got adopted in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 7