[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121102165456.GB9997@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:54:56 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:52:44PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> The first question is how many compromises do you need. Without
> co-operation from windows, you don't get to install something in the
> boot system, so if you're looking for a single compromise vector, the
> only realistic attack is to trick the user into booting a hacked linux
> system from USB or DVD.
You run a binary. It pops up a box saying "Windows needs your permission
to continue", just like almost every other Windows binary that's any
use. Done.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists