Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Fedora, secure boot, and an insecure futureFedora, secure boot, and an insecure futurePosted Jun 18, 2012 15:32 UTC (Mon) by josephkliener (guest, #85179)Parent article: Fedora, secure boot, and an insecure future
Actually it is more than $99.
It is also the wasted time and red hat or community money and resources making a secure boot compatible kernel... this is $100,000's of work and man hours.
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora, secure boot, and an insecure future Posted Jun 18, 2012 19:06 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
What's wrong with the kernel (and other software) being compatible? Should a company or school not be allowed to force that students use their vetted Linux distro/version combo rather than some custom distro? I would like to ensure my servers are using the right versions of things. I'd use my own key, but if we said "Linux shouldn't even support SecureBoot" then this isn't possible. Having a distro get a key from Microsoft or using its own key are separate things.
Fedora, secure boot, and an insecure future Posted Jun 18, 2012 19:24 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I'm using my homegrown secure boot + remote attestation solution for physical security of servers containing medical data. Right now it's cobbled from BIOS with TPM support.
Ultimately, secure boot is a good thing. However, the way it's being implemented is far from perfect. By about ten light-years.
|
|||||||||||||