But more specifically....If Canonical is going to be using a MS signed bootloader... it seems to me what MS considers what secureboot enabled implies is going to matter a lot. So Canonical does this... MS revokes their key...and we are back to square one with Ubuntu users having to disable secureboot to work with Ubuntu. Except now its users with already installed dual-boot Ubuntu/Windows who find they can't load their Ubuntu bootloader because of a key revocation from MS.
Here's to hoping MS doesn't see Canonical cavalier attitude towards signed kernels as a security threat to windows installs. I really really hope that MS considers any dual boot situation as a non-starter for enforcement and ignores anything involving an alternative bootloader unless a request comes in from the entity who controls the bootloader's signature to revoke a key. Hope for the best... plan for the worst.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds