So did any of you get it to work?
That is signing VirtualBox modules and enabling secure boot in the bios?
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-08 5:47 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com:
On 07/08/2014 10:19 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On
On 2014-07-07, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that Microsoft's current policy may not allow unrestricted
virtualization (KVM or Virtualbox—does not matter) because that permits
launch of another operating system instance after execution of
unauthenticated code—the wording is
On 07/08/2014 10:19 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2014-07-07, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that Microsoft's current policy may not allow unrestricted
virtualization (KVM or Virtualbox—does not matter) because that permits
launch of another operating system instance after execution
2014-07-08 5:47 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com:
On 07/08/2014 10:19 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2014-07-07, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that Microsoft's current policy may not allow unrestricted
virtualization (KVM or Virtualbox—does not matter) because that
On 07/06/2014 07:10 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
So, the question is: Is it worth signing my own kernel?
Only if you keep your own key on a sufficiently separated machine,
otherwise it's equivalent to disabling Secure Boot anyway.
It's also not clear if the Virtualbox kernel modules themselves
Hi Fedora folks,
I've found that Oracle VirtualBox kernel module are not signed so I have to
disable secure boot. Oracle says that is not a VirtualBox bug. And Fedora
cannot sign it because of license, can it?
So, the question is: Is it worth signing my own kernel? Of course I can
circunvent
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 02:10:45PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
I've found that Oracle VirtualBox kernel module are not signed so I have to
disable secure boot. Oracle says that is not a VirtualBox bug. And Fedora
cannot sign it because of license, can it?
Correct. You can generate your own
