Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:28:55 +0200 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? Message-ID: <4FCF4D07.4080606@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1206060712490.28686@nber6> References: <CADy1Ce7MihpmMowc265%2BS_RKorMO3KEKsCgr=pdnjg2jzq-dYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120605203717.5663bdf7.freebsd@edvax.de> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1206051653120.5642@nber6> <20120605181055.4af65fdb@scorpio> <4FCF0772.8000609@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1206060712490.28686@nber6>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/6/12 1:19 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote: >>> I thought this URL <http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html>; also shown >>> above, answered that question. >> >> Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superficially like a good >> idea to me. However, instant reaction is that this is definitely *not* >> something that Microsoft should be in charge of. Some neutral[*] body > ... >> On deeper thought though, the whole idea appears completely unworkable. >> It means that you will not be able to compile your own kernel or >> drivers unless you have access to a signing key. As building your own > > You don't need the signing key if you turn off secure boot in the CMOS. > The fedora folk are worried that naive desktop users will not be able to > do that, and usage of linux will be impeded. It won't be a significant > impediment to users capable of compiling their own kernel. > >> is pretty fundamental to the FreeBSD project, the logical consequence is >> that FreeBSD source should come with a signing key for anyone to use. >> >> Which completely abrogates the whole point of signing >> bootloaders/kernels in the first place: anyone wishing to create malware >> would be able to sign whatever they want using such a key. It's >> DRM-level stupidity all over again. > > I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing > key have to keep it secret? Apple keeps it's signing key secret because > it gets a share of revenue from the sale of apps. If the fedora key > became known it wouldn't hurt fedora. Can the UEFI BIOS consult a list > of revoked keys online? That would be surprising. > > dan feenberg Key revoked in the BIOS' next version, which will ship by default on newer hardware. No need for checking online.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCF4D07.4080606>