On Di, 05.04.22 17:38, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > When users have a suboptimal experience by default, it makes Fedora > look bad. We can't have security concerns overriding all other > concerns. But it's really pernicious to simultaneously say security is > important, but we're also not going to sign proprietary drivers. This > highly incentivizes the user to disable Secure Boot because that's so > much easier than users signing kernel modules and enrolling keys with > the firmware, and therefore makes the user *less safe*.
Let me stress one thing though: Fedora *has* *no* working SecureBoot implementation. The initrd is not authenticated. It has no signatures, nothing. By disabling SecureBoot you effectively lose exactly nothing in terms of security right now. What good is a trusted boot loader or kernel if it then goes on loading an initrd that is not authenticated, super easy to modify (I mean, seriously, any idiot script kiddie can unpack a cpio, add some shell script and pack it up again, replacing the original one) – and it's the component that actually reads your FDE LUKS password. I mean, let's not pretend unsigned drivers were a big issue for security right now. They are now, we have much much much wider gaping holes in our stack. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
