On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:04:56AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:54:16PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:38:04AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:31:56PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > So, once that proof is written, suddenly all of the working Linux > > > > distros's keys will be revoked? That will be fun to watch happen, and > > > > odds are, it will not. Imagine the PR fun that will cause :) > > > > > > No. Why would they be? > > > > Because they are using the "public" shim that you provided them, or the > > Linux Foundation's shim. Almost no distro, other than the "main" 3-4 > > will end up getting their own shim signed, the rest will just use the > > one you so helpfully provided them :) > > There's no reason for the LF or generic shim to be blacklisted, since > neither will load anything without manual intervention. But that also > means that anyone trying to boot them has to have some knowledge of > English, and that there's no way to netboot them. But sure, anyone > planning that approach has much less to worry about.
I don't see anything about "manual intervention" in the wording that you provided from Microsoft absolving you from the "duty" you feel you owe them. I understand you are worried about "automated" exploits, but that really is just a semantic overall, as we know it is easy to get people to hit a key when booting just to get on with the process. > > Yes you can. There are all sorts of fun ways you can do this, I can > > think of a few more at the moment as well. So, where does it stop? > > And why stop it at all? Why not just forbid root users at all? > > Because there's a distinction between ring 0 and ring 3? Since when did you start trusting ring 0 code? Bozos like me write this stuff, surely it isn't secure :) > > > Microsoft aren't dictating anything here. We're free not to use their > > > signatures. However, if we do use their signatures, we agree to play by > > > their rules. Nobody seems to have come up with a viable alternative, so > > > here we are. > > > > Ok, I keep hearing people say, "why doesn't someone else create a > > signing authority!" all the time. And it comes down to one big thing, > > money. > > Right. We've failed at creating an alternative. That doesn't mean that > we get to skip the responsibilities associated with the choice we've > made. Wait, who is "we" here? The community? The community over-all didn't agree with anything with Microsoft, that is between the people getting a signed key and Microsoft. Again, you are trying to push your (prior) company's agreement between them and Microsoft onto the community, and now the community is pushing back, is that a surprise? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
