| |||||||||||||
No signed kernel, just a signed boot loaderNo signed kernel, just a signed boot loaderPosted Jun 26, 2012 18:10 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)In reply to: No signed kernel, just a signed boot loader by raven667 Parent article: Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan
> > you can sign your own payloads and install your own keys
> So we agree on the substance of the matter. I can't comment on the rest of your post because I can't find any facts or point, just a lot of rhetorical flailing about.
Too bad things are not that obvious to Fedora and Canonical. They should have hired you and saved a lot of effort.
(Log in to post comments)
No signed kernel, just a signed boot loader Posted Jun 26, 2012 19:14 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
Oh har har har, Mr Sarcastic guy. In any event I am merely relating the understanding and rationale that Fedora and Canonical have publicly written. The fact that the OP doesn't seem to want to read or understand that is the issue I'm trying to correct.
Foolish on my part I suppose. http://xkcd.com/386/
|
|||||||||||||