| |||||||||||||
No signed kernel, just a signed boot loaderNo signed kernel, just a signed boot loaderPosted Jun 25, 2012 13:43 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)In reply to: No signed kernel, just a signed boot loader by hummassa Parent article: Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan
If only the revocation mechanisms were documented in some kind of specification, or something. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
(Log in to post comments)
No signed kernel, just a signed boot loader Posted Jun 25, 2012 13:48 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
linky linky?
No signed kernel, just a signed boot loader Posted Jun 25, 2012 13:51 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
No signed kernel, just a signed boot loader Posted Jun 26, 2012 1:49 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
I had got it just before I saw your link; thanks. I will read it carefully in the next day or so (if $DAYJOB and $HOMECARE give me some space) and will get back to you. But I will tell you beforehand that if the mechanisms are not crowded with possible attack vectors I will be VERY pleasantly surprised.
|
|||||||||||||