4 ms·
And I disagree with that. You've got to be able to run your own OS on your own system, don't you? If you disagree with some choices made in the "official" kerne
by mcv 6y ago
And I disagree with that. You've got to be able to run your own OS on your own system, don't you? If you disagree with some choices made in the "official" kernel, you should be able to make your own changes. If you work on kernel development, you should be able to test your changes.
If root can't control these things, then who can? Besides, even if root can't change the kernel, the system will still be compromised if an intruder gets root access.
- ravi-delia 6y agoYou can pretty easily sign your own kernel, it's not just manufacturer discretion.
- bombcar 6y agoYeah, it's the same as SELINUX - layers of security. I could easily see reasons to have a box that can boot a signed kernel but the signing keys are held by me offline.
- mindslight 6y agoThe point is that if the owner has chosen to required signature verification to boot, one shouldn't be able to get around this by restoring from a hibernation image. Imagine you as the party who booted the original kernel, and an evil maid as the party injecting the fake hibernation image. The real problem with TPM and its ilk is that keys owned by the manufacturer are baked in, rather than being owner-changeable by some suitable procedure. Overall, local cryptographic integrity does make sense. Remote Attestation is the actual threat to Freedom, but that's a separate discussion.