LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/)
-   -   Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/torvalds-clarifies-linuxs-windows-8-secure-boot-position-4175452251/)

onebuck 03-01-2013 09:35 AM

Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
 
Hi,

Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position:
Quote:

Summary: The fuss over how to handle Windows 8 PC's Secure Boot keys in desktop Linux continues and Linus Torvalds spells out how he wants to see it handled.

No one, but no one, in the Linux community likes Microsoft's mandated deployment of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) Secure Boot option in Windows 8 certified PCs. But, how Linux should handle the fixes required to deal with this problem remains a hot-button issue. Now, as the debate continues hot and heavy, Linus Torvalds, Linux's founder and de facto leader, spells out how he thinks Linux should deal with Secure Boot keys.
Torvalds was mad as hell with proposals to place Secure Boot keys and their management into the Linux kernel itself. Torvalds called the idea "moronic."
That said, there still needs to be some way to deal with the necessary evil of Secure Boot key management. Or, does there?
Part of the concern driving the desire to manage Secure Boot at a low-level in Linux is that a Microsoft-signed, Linux Secure Boot key might be used to hack systems. If that were to happen, some developers fear that Microsoft would disable the key. This would have the effect of disabling Linux PCs using that Secure Boot key. And, no one wants that.


jens 03-01-2013 10:03 AM

This is no more than a personal vendetta between an unskilled blogger (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols) and Matthew Garrett.

Utterly pointless.

Do read his "friendly" remarks on Matthew's blog as well:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23400.ht...6616#cmt896616

Edit:
... especially this reply from Greg K-H:

Quote:

I have no idea how you ever got that idea, but for the record, I, Greg Kroah-Hartman, do NOT have a low opinion of Matthew's technical skills at all. And I really doubt that Ted or Linus do either.

We are merely disagreeing about how something should be implemented, or in my case, how "far" we need to take the "secure" kernel options.

That does not mean I think less of Matthew at all, in any way, shape or form. I have only the highest regard for him, and consider him a friend. He is a valuable asset to Linux and he has done wonderful work for the kernel, and for Linux overall for a very long time.

Sam, if you ever have a question about what my opinion is, please ask before ever writing something that can turn out (like now) to be so totally wrong.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23400.ht...1992#cmt901992

onebuck 03-01-2013 11:34 AM

Member Response
 
Hi,

I really find the article and links within informational for a user to make their decision. As to the state between Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols and Matthew Garrett, we all have different opinions and positions with this topic.

I am providing the linked article(s) for users to read and decide on their own position. Well informed users will not be bluffed or fall for FUD.

jens 03-02-2013 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onebuck (Post 4902580)
Hi,

I really find the article and links within informational for a user to make their decision. As to the state between Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols and Matthew Garrett, we all have different opinions and positions with this topic.

I am providing the linked article(s) for users to read and decide on their own position. Well informed users will not be bluffed or fall for FUD.

Oops ... it seems that I've mixed-up Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols with Sam Varghese (again!).
(Apologies to Steven if he ever reads this)

Both make the same mistake though.

You can't just cherry-pick parts from a much wider discussion to prove your own (uninformed and wrong) facts.

It's exactly these kind of uninformed articles what causes moronic FUD posts like the ones from Sam (internet-bully) Varghese:
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-an...ke-distro-keys

Ztcoracat 03-05-2013 11:12 PM

This whole thing seems like war to me but that is just my take on it.

I can't remember which article that I read on the ZDnet website but Linus specifically said:
Quote:

"Signed binary modules are not going to be in the Linux kernel"
And until yesterday; I didn't know that Garrett used to work for Red Hat-

BTW, the folks at Ubuntu are not happy about this Win's 8 Secure Boot issue either-

Where do you think this is really going?
And if you don't mind me asking:
Onebuck and Jens:

Is this about power and control or something much bigger like maybe a lawsuit?

Is it just me or has this whole thing really gotten over the top? # ! - ?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 PM.