On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:05:53PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 01:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Is UEFI Secure Boot really the only way to prevent the problem it attempts to
>> solve, and if so, what about the plethora of BIOS hardware in the world
>> today, still even shipping as new systems? They're all unacceptably
exposed?
>> Really?
>
> That's the position Microsoft has taken, yes.
Do you share this position that Microsoft has taken? If not, why not? Do you think there
are alternatives to UEFI Secure Boot - including a possible spec change?
There are certainly a number of implementation details that could be
changed that would make various things easier, and obviously we could do
things that standardised user enrolment of keys, but I suspect any
solution would end up looking broadly similar to this.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org