On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 08:30:17PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > I'm sure many folks have read <http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html> > ("Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora", 2012-30-05) and similar > analysis and came away with the impression of a rather open, automated > signing process, like we had/have for ActiveX controls and Java > Webstart applications. This may have helped to increase acceptance of > Microsoft Secure Boot in the technical community. But lately, in > direct contradiction to earlier descriptions of the process, a lot of > talk about "obligations" has appeared. I understand that you cannot > go into specifics, but this situation is rather unfortunate for all of > us.
It's open. If your code ends up signed and is then used to compromise the security of other signed operating systems, you're likely to be blacklisted. That can't surprise anyone, can it? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- 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/
