Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 04/03/2016 12:42, Arnt Gulbrandsen a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>>> Insert a Knoppix Cdrom, mount your home and read it. If UEFI
>>> refuses to boot the Knoppix disk, use the Debian installer.
>>
>> Mounting the home (using either knoppix or d-i)
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Simon Hobson writes:
>> Not really, but I don't see any sign of that as a question in the post I was
>> replying to !
>
> You said secure boot's security is blown out of the water because it's
> possible to run untrusted code under certain
Am Freitag, 4. März 2016 schrieb Arnt Gulbrandsen:
> Dr. Nikolaus Klepp writes:
> > Am Freitag, 4. März 2016 schrieb Arnt Gulbrandsen:
> >> You said secure boot's security is blown out of the water because it's
> >> possible to run untrusted code under certain circumstances. IMHO it
> >>
Le 04/03/2016 12:42, Arnt Gulbrandsen a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Insert a Knoppix Cdrom, mount your home and read it. If UEFI
refuses to boot the Knoppix disk, use the Debian installer.
Mounting the home (using either knoppix or d-i) requires the luks
passphrase. You could get that
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp writes:
Am Freitag, 4. März 2016 schrieb Arnt Gulbrandsen:
You said secure boot's security is blown out of the water because it's
possible to run untrusted code under certain circumstances. IMHO it
provides useful security because (absent mistakes by the owner) there are
Am Freitag, 4. März 2016 schrieb Arnt Gulbrandsen:
> Simon Hobson writes:
> > Not really, but I don't see any sign of that as a question in
> > the post I was replying to !
>
> You said secure boot's security is blown out of the water because it's
> possible to run untrusted code under certain
Simon Hobson writes:
Not really, but I don't see any sign of that as a question in
the post I was replying to !
You said secure boot's security is blown out of the water because it's
possible to run untrusted code under certain circumstances. IMHO it
provides useful security because (absent
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Simon Hobson writes:
>> Isn't it the bootloader that UEFI loads and runs, and as long as the
>> bootloader (Grub) is signed, then UEFI should boot it and grub can boot
>> anything you want. Kind of blasts the argument that secure boot is
Le 04/03/2016 12:10, Arnt Gulbrandsen a écrit :
Simon Hobson writes:
Isn't it the bootloader that UEFI loads and runs, and as long as the
bootloader (Grub) is signed, then UEFI should boot it and grub can
boot anything you want. Kind of blasts the argument that secure boot
is either essential
Simon Hobson writes:
Isn't it the bootloader that UEFI loads and runs, and as long
as the bootloader (Grub) is signed, then UEFI should boot it and
grub can boot anything you want. Kind of blasts the argument
that secure boot is either essential or secure out of the water
when you can sign
Ooops, sorry, I was of the impression I was using a forum.
On 04/03/2016, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think, with a signed Linux kernel, UEFI Secure Boot can be made to
> load any other unsigned Linux kernel, which would imply, any
> distribution would be possible to be
11 matches
Mail list logo