[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121102175416.GA11816@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:54:16 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
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 05:48:31PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 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.
>
> And if all the loaders do some type of present user test on a virgin
> system, how do you propose to get that message up there?
? That's the message generated by the Windows access control mechanism
when you run a binary that requests elevated privileges.
--
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