Brendan Perrine schreef op 15-07-2016 8:26:
Yes and secure boot is different for different usecases. I can see
secure boot being geniunely useful for an atm on end not that I think
there are implementations that use ubuntu that I know about. But if
say you boot a malicous live os on the atm then
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:44:22 +0200
Xen wrote:
> Dale Amon schreef op 14-07-2016 16:55:
> > I don't particularly like Secure Boot and UEFI, and in fact for
> > development work I prefer having the ability to turn them off.
> >
> > That said, I would almost certainly want to set it up for a
> > sp
Dale Amon schreef op 14-07-2016 16:55:
I don't particularly like Secure Boot and UEFI, and in fact for
development work I prefer having the ability to turn them off.
That said, I would almost certainly want to set it up for a
spacecraft system. There are reasons for Secure Boot if you
are securi
I don't particularly like Secure Boot and UEFI, and in fact for
development work I prefer having the ability to turn them off.
That said, I would almost certainly want to set it up for a
spacecraft system. There are reasons for Secure Boot if you
are security conscious. It is a way to stop the ba
Ralf Mardorf schreef op 05-07-2016 10:15:
You and I are advanced users and using secure boot at least is
uncomfortable for us, we don't know, if it could cause an issue at a
bad
timing. It might expand security, but for my computer usage I didn't
experience security issues in more than 10 year
Tom H schreef op 09-07-2016 20:45:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:39:48 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:58 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
It's still more user-friendly to disable secure boot, than to deal
with it, isn't it?
It's certainly si
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:39:48 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:58 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>>
>>> It's still more user-friendly to disable secure boot, than to deal
>>> with it, isn't it?
>>
>> It's certainly simpler. I've disabled
On 5 July 2016 at 04:15, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:39:48 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:58 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >> It's still more user-friendly to disable secure boot, than to deal
> >> with it, isn't it?
> >
> >It's certainly simpler. I've disabled SB on
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:39:48 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:58 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> It's still more user-friendly to disable secure boot, than to deal
>> with it, isn't it?
>
>It's certainly simpler. I've disabled SB on my laptop out of sheer
>laziness
I only use an old BIOS
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Dale Amon wrote:
>
> If you roll your own kernels, do the build scripts
> let you generate your own keys?
If you don't generate your own key and set its path in
"CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY", "make" will generate a
"certs/signing_key.pem" key (unless you disable key gen
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:58 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On 04.07.2016, at 00:02, Tom H wrote:
>> The Linux developers who put together a Linux solution/option for
>> Secure Boot must've thought that there's a case to be made for Secure
>> Boot on Linux.
>
> Yes hardware and multi-boot with a propr
Just a dumb question, since I have not been happy
with UEFI let alone secure boot with keys.
If you roll your own kernels, do the build scripts
let you generate your own keys?
Dale Amon
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
Yes, it would be more user-friendly to disable secure boot instead of
asking a user to go through the process of importing a new key after
every kernel or driver upgrade. Therefore, I will modify my proposal a
bit and suggest that the menu to disable secure boot should have a new
option to add
On 04.07.2016, at 00:02, Tom H wrote:
> The Linux developers who put together a Linux solution/option for
> Secure Boot must've thought that there's a case to be made for Secure
> Boot on Linux.
Yes hardware and multi-boot with a proprietary OS that enforces usage of secure
boot is at least one r
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 15:18:44 -0500, Kaosu NA wrote:
>>
>> Not only will something like this be more user-friendly, but it
>> also allows a large number of Ubuntu users to take advantage of a
>> modern security technology without giving up usabil
Oops :D
>On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 15:18:44 -0500, Kaosu NA wrote:
>>Not only will something like this be more user-friendly, but it
>>also allows a large number of Ubuntu users to take advantage of a
>>modern security technology without giving up usability.
>
>Secure boot is modern, but it is useful f
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 15:18:44 -0500, Kaosu NA wrote:
>Not only will something like this be more user-friendly, but it
>also allows a large number of Ubuntu users to take advantage of a
>modern security technology without giving up usability.
Secure boot is modern, but it is useful for Linux and BSD
I found a few typos that need to be corrected to avoid confusion:
1) /etc/kernel/postint.d should be /etc/kernel/postinst.d
2) The suggested command for the script in the above directory should
be /usr/src/linux-headers-$(uname
-r)/scripts/sign-file sha256 /path/to/keys/VBOX.priv /path/to/keys/VB
18 matches
Mail list logo
