Hi,
according to distrowatch.com:
FreeBSD developer Marshall Mickusick told IT Wire that the FreeBSD team would
probably follow in the footsteps of cutting-edge Linux distributions.
Indeed we will likely take the Linux shim loader, put our own key in it, and
then ask Microsoft to sign it. Since
Hello,
You can call me naive, but until today,
I could not find only a one user that wants to use FreeBSD and/or LInux
AND windows
in any machine I mount/sold, and I have mount it by the dozen,
servers running FreeBSD, notebooks running a custom version of Arch
Linux...
In the freeBSD servers,
On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote:
[snip]
So the question:
Why or when will I need an secure UEFI boot???
From what I've read of UEFI Secure boot, I've parceled out into these nuggets:
(correct any nuggets I got wrong)
1. UEFI Secure boot is actually UEFI
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:24:38 -0300
Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote:
I could not find only a one user that wants to use FreeBSD and/or
LInux AND windows
Some people don't want to delete a preinstalled copy of Windows so they
can buy another and install it in a virtual server.
There are also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/8/2013 6:28 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote:
[snip]
So the question:
Why or when will I need an secure UEFI boot???
From what I've read of UEFI Secure boot, I've parceled out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/8/2013 6:28 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
Not entirely correct. Microsoft licensing requires UEFI Secure boot
for PCs sold with preinstalled Win8 and the Windows 8 logo.
Win8 itself boots and runs fine on legacy hardware without UEFI
(and often
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way not
to harm themselves.
A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot
(this is what Secure Boot basically is) you are no longer able
to _ignore_
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:31:40 +0200
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way
not
to harm themselves.
A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot
Mike Jeays mike.jeays at rogers.com writes:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:31:40 +0200
Polytropon freebsd at edvax.de wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find
a way not to harm themselves.
A massive
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a
way not
to harm themselves.
A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot
(this
Any server manufacturer who chooses to only support MS products is
going to find they don't get much business from the academic market.
such behaviour is even more stupid today as globally PC market is
shrinking.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Hi Cordula,
Good points you made.
The sooner it's blocked the easier to block.
*BSD, + *Linux, Solaris etc people could start contacting their local
anti monopoly / anti free trade, government departments to give them time
to look into the issues.
If eg EU commision found it a monopolist
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:23 AM, C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws wrote:
Only if they fully follow the spec. This is rather unlikely.
Even today, there are still many broken DMI/SMBIOS
tables out there that contain barely enough stuff for
Windows to boot successfully. What makes you think
grarpamp writes:
Plenty of millionaires
out there now who are in tune with opensource who could startup,
buy the same ARM/ATOM/etc chips, the same support chips, load
Android and sell it to the masses.
Would you please post a list of these millionaire FLOSS entrepreneurs?
Thank you.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM, grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com wrote:
I did say effectively. If people would actually read that chapter
in the spec (minimally 27.5) they would find that they can:
- Load a new PK without asking if in default SetupMode
- If not in SetupMode, chainload a new PK
grarpamp wrote:
Isn't there a lot of needless handwaving going on when the spec is
pretty clear that installing your own complete PKI tree will all
boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
The hope for a jumper is insufficient.
Cracking open laptops is no fun. It's not
Isn't there a lot of needless handwaving going on when the spec is
pretty clear that installing your own complete PKI tree will all
boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
Hoping a jumper Might be under an easily unscrewable panel seems unlikely.
I did say effectively.
.
Users could fully utilize the UEFI Secure Boot hardware by say:
- Using openssl to generate their keys
- Jumper the board, burn it into the BIOS in UEFI SB SetupMode
- Have all the MBR, slice, partition, installkernel, etc tools
install and manage the signed disk/loader/kernel/module
Isn't there a lot of needless handwaving going on when the spec is
pretty clear that installing your own complete PKI tree will all
boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
First, some sanity...
Users could fully utilize the UEFI Secure Boot hardware by say:
- Using
that installing your own complete PKI tree will all
boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
First, some sanity...
Users could fully utilize the UEFI Secure Boot hardware by say:
- Using openssl to generate their keys
- Jumper the board, burn it into the BIOS in UEFI SB
20 matches
Mail list logo
