LinuxQuestions.org - [SOLVED] Does anyone understand Secure Boot?

- Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)

- - Does anyone understand Secure Boot? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/does-anyone-understand-secure-boot-4175431737/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4804568)

No offense meant, but I wonder why people don't actually read what Microsofts requirements are:

No offense taken. But do you really wonder why people do not keep reading documents containing 175 pages sitting on some server at Microsoft? Anyway, thanks for finding both the document and the relevant section!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4804568)

Microsoft would be sued to hell in the EU and I think even in the US of A they would see another anti-trust lawsuit.

Maybe they would, but you know what world we live in and what measures are possible in formerly democratic countries under the pretense of fighting (1) terrorists (2) music pirates and (3) child pornographers - in that order.

Secure Boot will neither protect from terrorists nor music or software piracy nor child pornographers. And I think the anti-trust authorities here in the EU wouldn't believe something like that.

Signed Kernel Modules Support For Linux 3.7

This is the title of an article from Michael Larabel I juste read on Phoronix. Let me quote a paragraph of it:

Quote:

The most pressing need for the module signing support is for UEFI SecureBoot so that the Linux kernel can reject loading any unsigned modules, which could pose a threat if it's malicious code or unsigned binary blobs.

I don't know it that will add something useful the fu{n,d}. Just wanted to feed the discussion before going to sleep ;)