Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: UEFI SecureBoot Comes To QEMU-KVM

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,415

    Default UEFI SecureBoot Comes To QEMU-KVM

    Phoronix: UEFI SecureBoot Comes To QEMU-KVM

    Early support for UEFI SecureBoot is now available via qemu-kvm for messing with this troublesome technology in a virtualized world...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEyODU

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    28

    Default

    I am curious to know what Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds think personally about the whole UEFI thing :S

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    Good, I hope Secure Boot locks out all the garbage blobs that are infecting our systems today.
    Yes ,but secure boot is bad standard because they cannot see the difference between a operating system installed by the user and a virus.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lapis View Post
    Yes ,but secure boot is bad standard because they cannot see the difference between a operating system installed by the user and a virus.

    Nonsense, it was never meant to, plus it's impossible to do really. Is bash a bad standard because it doesn't write it's own scripts?

    What it does is ask weather X binary object contains a valid signature based on the keys in it's database, and loads it conditionally based on the answer. So far as I can tell, it is at least a passable standard for what it actually is mean to do.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorBlux View Post
    Nonsense, it was never meant to, plus it's impossible to do really. Is bash a bad standard because it doesn't write it's own scripts?

    What it does is ask weather X binary object contains a valid signature based on the keys in it's database, and loads it conditionally based on the answer. So far as I can tell, it is at least a passable standard for what it actually is mean to do.
    A security feature has the purpose to protect the users and not restrict them.

    Even a trusted software from user does not have a key,the system should create a exception system to install the software ,like browsers do.The browser asks the user about the exception.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lapis View Post
    A security feature has the purpose to protect the users and not restrict them.

    Even a trusted software from user does not have a key,the system should create a exception system to install the software ,like browsers do.The browser asks the user about the exception.
    Just because someone implements feature in a bad way doesn't mean that feature or standard is bad. Abuse is no argument against proper use. There's absolutely nothing in the standard which would prevent the addition of exceptions or new public keys into the firmware by an end user. Some providers likely will, some won't. Vote with your wallet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •