On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 04:21 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Therefore, we will only be requiring authentication of boot loader
binaries. Ubuntu will not require signed kernel images or kernel
modules.
How are you going to prevent your bootloader from being used to launch a
trojaned
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:01:50PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
At this point, because all the OS' stage 1 bootloaders (FLOSS and
non-FLOSS) are signed by the same authority, we are all are affected by
the others. It is clear that if there is a problem with DistroX's boot
loader, malware
What specifically is Canonical/Ubuntu doing to contact the OEM
(Quanta/Compal/etc) and Retail motherboard manufacturers
(ASUS/BioStar/MSI/GigaByte/Intel/etc) in order to:
- Query and ascertain their plans for UEFI Secure Boot implementation?
- Ensure that motherboards purchased by Ubuntu users
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:09 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:01:50PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
At this point, because all the OS' stage 1 bootloaders (FLOSS and
non-FLOSS) are signed by the same authority, we are all are affected by
the others. It is clear
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 04:26:20PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
I was unaware that that Microsoft volunteered to maintain dbx. Where
was this stated and how are they doing this exactly?
This was discussed at the last plugfest.
How does an individual/OS vendor go about providing the
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:41:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The benefits of signing purely a bootloader are minimal - bootloaders
that load unsigned code will be perfectly willing to set up a secondary
UEFI environment and then launch another bootloader that believes it's
in a
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 22:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 04:26:20PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
I was unaware that that Microsoft volunteered to maintain dbx. Where
was this stated and how are they doing this exactly?
This was discussed at the last plugfest.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:35:34PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
Understood (and what I was getting at with my question). This is
interesting. I'd be curious what protections are in place to keep
someone from blacklisting another vendor's binaries (presumably vendors
could only blacklist
Hello Ahmed,
أحمد المحمودي [2012-06-25 4:33 +0200]:
Is sl-modem-dkms added ?
Done now in VCS, will upload within the hour.
Martin
--
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Dear Developers,
We'll be starting to spin the images for Quantal Alpha 2 tonight.
The experiment we used during Alpha 1 seems to have worked out fairly
well :), so we'll be continuing with it in Alpha 2 until better tooling
is available. For this milestone following rules will apply:
10 matches
Mail list logo
