Liebe Mitstreiter,
könntet ihr bitte den Artikel devuan in
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devuan
anschauen, ergänzen, überarbeiten?
Danke,
Michael
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
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
2016-03-04 12:55 GMT+01:00, Nuno Magalhães :
> Meh, i don't buy their guarantees. Rephrasing: considering they're
> focusing on sd-bus, is the borg collective maintaining D-bus? Or is it
> still "free"? What are the init-inclinations of freedesktop.org?
It seems to me,
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
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Joel Roth wrote:
> Being that
> so much complex code is built on dbus, Pottering and co
> guarantee that dbus will not be broken by updates in the
> protocol.
Meh, i don't buy their guarantees. Rephrasing: considering they're
focusing on sd-bus,
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
13 matches
Mail list logo