On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:54 AM, Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net> wrote:
On 02/20/2018 03:41 AM, Tom H wrote:
> Ubuntu's using an MS sig. The difference between Fedora and Ubuntu is
> that the latter doesn't require that kernel modules be signed.
If that's true, then I think they're in violation of the secure boot rules.
And even if not, it makes secure boot ineffective anyway.
It's a matter of opinion. If MS, as the SB enforcer, thought that
Ubuntu was violating SB, it'd have blacklisted its sig from being
validated and chainloaded by the MS firmware sig.