On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is
implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the firmware,
Secure Boot issues disappear.
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is
implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot
On 06/20/2012 04:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that
UEFI Secure Boot will have
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:35:41PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
I know that there is a great
On 06/20/2012 05:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Technical hurdles will likely prevent this unless we an get vendors to
release documentation. Is there any chance you could contact people at
Intel requesting programming documentation on their memory controller
and anything else we would need to write a
I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that UEFI Secure
Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is implemented in the UEFI
firmware and if we replace the firmware, Secure Boot issues disappear. With
that in mind, I believe we can solve the Secure Boot problem
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but their
development process is slow and their approach seems to make the boot process
more complicated than it needs to be. Since Secure Boot will force us to
On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
I know that the Core Boot project also tries to accomplish this, but
their development process is slow and their approach seems to make the
boot process more complicated than it needs
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/19/2012 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Core Boot is a Linux distribution. I do not think that we should boot
Gentoo using their distribution any more than we boot Gentoo using RHEL.
Well, maybe it is a distro in the sense
On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
In theory, the kernel could be modified to only execute signed binaries
and portage could be modified to produce signed binaries. The user could
build a system that required everything to be signed with the private
key of his choice. A hardened
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/19/2012 09:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
We would gain a faster boot process. We would also enable people to
avoid paying money for keys that can be revoked without a refund.
While I have no doubt that a determined team
Hi, I have about 11 years of experience with coreboot. I got
involved while developing a custom BIOS for an embedded system.
You may already have caught some presentation I or one of the other
developers have made about the project. There's a bunch of links
over at
13 matches
Mail list logo
