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

[Russell Coker]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012, Adam Nielsen <a.nielsen at shikadi.net> wrote:
> I thought the long-term idea behind Secure Boot was that once the OS kernel
> is  secure, it can enforce the signing of applications too.  Unlike now,
> there would be no way to circumvent this by patching the kernel to allow
> unsigned applications to run, as then the kernel wouldn't be allowed to
> boot.  If your application hasn't been signed, you can't run it.

As far as I'm aware no-one has ever had any plan to support only signed 
applications.  Even for systems like the iPhone which are extremely locked 
down (such that most people here won't buy one) there is still a need to have 
test systems for developers.

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/