5 ms·
It'd be easy to generate a signed bootloader that runs unsigned kernels. It'd also be easy to then use that bootloader to boot malware to attack Windows. For se
by mjg59 15y ago
It'd be easy to generate a signed bootloader that runs unsigned kernels. It'd also be easy to then use that bootloader to boot malware to attack Windows. For secure boot to be in any way useful it would then be necessary to blacklist that signed bootloader. Signed kernels that load unsigned drivers have the same problem.
- daeken 15y agoI'm not arguing that Secure Boot is useful or good in any way, I'm simply saying that from a technical perspective, signed bootloader does not mean signed kernel.
- mjg59 15y agoFrom a technical perspective, you're absolutely right. From a real world perspective, it requires a signed kernel and signed drivers.
- lukeschlather 15y agoHardware encryption should mitigate that issue, just so unsigned kernels aren't allowed access to the keys (which would prevent you from running hardware encryption with an unsigned kernel, but that's sensible.)
- mjg59 15y agoThe keys aren't an issue. The issue is whether you can run untrusted ring 0 code before running another OS, because if you can then you can subvert the trust model.