Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support

[Eric W. Biederman]

Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:58:17PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:34:52 +0000
>> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I think you've misunderstood. Blacklist updates are append only.
>> 
>> I think you've misunderstood - thats a technical detail that merely
>> alters the cost to the people who did something improper.
>
> Winning a case is cold comfort if your software has been uninstallable 
> for the years it took to get through the courts. If others want to take 
> that risk, fine.

When the goal is to secure Linux I don't see how any of this helps.
Windows 8 compromises are already available so if we turn most of these
arguments around I am certain clever attackers can go through windows to
run compromised kernel on a linux system, at least as easily as the
reverse.

Short of instructing UEFI to stop trusting the Microsoft signing key I
don't see any of the secureboot dance gaining any security of computers
running linux or security from keys being revoked for non-sense reasons.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/