[Linux-aus] Fwd: What is LA's response to UEFI Secure Boot?

[Brent Wallis]

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Adam Nielsen <a.nielsen at shikadi.net> wrote:

> > All of the cruft, innuendo and troll nonsense aside from both sides....
> > Who would like to participate in an ad hoc group to do a press release
> draft?
>
> I'm happy to be involved.  What's our position?
>
>    1. Secure Boot is bad and should not be allowed to go ahead in any form.
>
>    2. Secure Boot could be bad so we must ensure it can be disabled if
> needed.
>
>    3. Secure Boot is great, providing we have control over the keys our
>       equipment recognises as valid.
>
> My personal position is the last one.  I think Secure Boot could work
> well, if
> I can remove the Microsoft keys (since they're bound to be compromised
> sooner
> or later) and install my own, only allowing my chosen Linux kernels to boot
> and nothing else.
>

Agreed. Point 3 works for me.