Robert Millan schrieb:
IOW, no matter who the keys belong to, the problem is there's a component in
the hardware I paid for that is hostile to me, which contains keys that I
cannot retrieve (good, because of security), and refuses to use the keys on
anything I want it to (bad, because it's inhere
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:45:10PM +0200, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> As far as I know, this mechanism doesn't prevent you from creating
> another root. (or just deleting the old one)
No, but it stablishes a practice that it is ok to use someone else's root.
When everyone starts doing this (and they
Hi,
any more comments or questions on this patch, so I can improve it if
necessary?
Thanks,
Patrick Georgi
Index: aclocal.m4
===
RCS file: /sources/grub/grub2/aclocal.m4,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -r1.6 aclocal.m4
--- aclo
Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070530 15:18]:
>> IOW, no matter who the keys belong to, the problem is there's a component in
>> the hardware I paid for that is hostile to me, which contains keys that I
>> cannot retrieve (good, because of securi
Since i didn't get any feedback, i was forced to use the force and
go to the source. I found out a few amazing things.
First of all, there is a serious inconsistency between the next
version of the Multiboot Specification and the current code. The
spec mentions: "[..] The header must start with a
* Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070531 18:40]:
> > You do not need a TPM based system. Todays BIOSes prohibit flashing
> > anything not signed by the vendor using SMI and hardware lockdown
> > mechanisms. You are locked out already, even though you might not care
> > or know yet.
>
> That sou
