>> would be really nice also to get UEFI BOOT compatible with SECURE BOOT
>> :-)
>
> Unless you are using your own BIOS, the above means getting Microsoft
> to sign boot1.efi or similar. Shims that simply work around lack of
> acceptible signature don't help.
As before in this thread, some motherb
On 13/10/19 11:28, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2019, at 1:05, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Since FreeBSD ships with IPv6 support enabled by default, aren't all
>> systems affected, one way or another?
>
> No, you have to configure IPv6, otherwise processing is not done.
You mean t
Clay Daniels Jr. wrote:
> Simon, please do elaborate more on your implementation. I suspect you are
> talking about libsecureboot? I have played with the generation of certs
> with OpenSSL & LibreSSL, but libsecureboot seems to take a different
> approach. Please tell us more.
Yes I meant libsec
Simon, please do elaborate more on your implementation. I suspect you are
talking about libsecureboot? I have played with the generation of certs
with OpenSSL & LibreSSL, but libsecureboot seems to take a different
approach. Please tell us more.
Clay
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 1:52 PM Simon J. Gerra
Tomasz CEDRO wrote:
> would be really nice also to get UEFI BOOT compatible with SECURE BOOT :-)
Unless you are using your own BIOS, the above means getting Microsoft
to sign boot1.efi or similar. Shims that simply work around lack of
acceptible signature don't help.
That would need to then ver
