6 ms·
requiring admin rights for an exploit is certainly a lower barrier to entry than is requiring physical access, but I think my point still stands: if someone has
by bradford 10y ago
requiring admin rights for an exploit is certainly a lower barrier to entry than is requiring physical access, but I think my point still stands: if someone has those rights, you're already screwed.
- noenpnqnoen 10y ago...which means secure boot doesn't provide security.
- stable-point 10y ago> if someone has those rights, you're already screwed. I think that this was once true, but Secure Boot was an attempt to improve the situation. My understanding is that Microsoft's Virtualization Based Security (which Device Guard/Credential Guard are built upon) rely on the assumption that the boot process is secure. If an attacker could have their root kit load before the OS/Hyper-V, then they render those mitigations useless.