Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: The State Of Linux Distributions Handling SecureBoot

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    MS essentially said... "Lets make up some imaginary boot loader virus so we can fuck linux!"

    Windows 8 is still gonna get just as comprimised as every other windows has ever been. And booting linux doesnt have a single damn thing to do with that.
    Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. I've explained why and how this improves security.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post

    Yeah, we're so fucked that there's already mainstream Linux distributions that boot out of the box on Secure Boot systems.
    With MS's blessing.... What about every other linux configuration that is otherwise perfectly valid? You dont get it. If a virus invects MS's bootloader it doesnt mean shit for linux. It's MS's problem.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
    Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. I've explained why and how this improves security.
    Visa-versa... You repeating the same crap over and over still doesnt make MS's security flaws a problem that linux has to deal with. It DOESNT improve security for LINUX. It just prevents linux from booting. Period. Which I believe full heartedly that was the entire intention in the first place...
    Last edited by duby229; 12-28-2012 at 03:10 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Visa-versa... You repeating the same crap over and over still doesnt make MS's security flaws a problem that linux has to deal with. It DOESNT improve security for LINUX. It just prevents linux from booting. Period. Which I believe full heartedly that was the entire intention in the first place...
    Why do you think these attacks are any less plausible on Linux?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
    Why do you think these attacks are any less plausible on Linux?

    It doesnt matter. Its not MS's place to decide for linux. period.

    If the linux community wants to take the time to derive a solution of there own, they will. If it becomes a large enough problem that action needs taken, it will be taken
    Last edited by duby229; 12-28-2012 at 03:20 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,631

    Default

    I just want to know if there is a signed shim out there that does not check for a 2nd stage bootloader signature, that would kill all security

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    It doesnt matter. Its not MS's place to decide for linux. period.
    They didn't. They decided for Microsoft. But, as I explained, there's no way for them to implement this security mechanism without also placing certain requirements on any other trusted binaries that those machines will boot out of the box.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    I just want to know if there is a signed shim out there that does not check for a 2nd stage bootloader signature, that would kill all security
    Which is why one doesn't exist.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
    They didn't. They decided for Microsoft. But, as I explained, there's no way for them to implement this security mechanism without also placing certain requirements on any other trusted binaries that those machines will boot out of the box.
    An imaginary boot loader virus didnt decide nothing.

    "Oh my imaginary friend told me I had to do it occifer! STOP IT YOUR STANDING ON HIM!!!"

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    An imaginary boot loader virus didnt decide nothing.
    https://support.kaspersky.com/viruse...?qid=208280748 - they're not imaginary.
    http://www.securelist.com/en/analysi...ws_x64_Bootkit describes one in detail.

Posting Permissions

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