From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:47:02 -0700 Message-ID: <87sj8rwm0p.fsf@xmission.com> References: <20121101210634.GA19723@srcf.ucam.org> <20121101213127.5967327f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121101212843.GA20309@srcf.ucam.org> <20121101213751.377ebaa8@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121101213452.GA20564@srcf.ucam.org> <20121101215817.79e50ec2@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121101215752.GA21154@srcf.ucam.org> <87625ogzje.fsf@xmission.com> <20121102140057.GA4668@srcf.ucam.org> <87liejacix.fsf@xmission.com> <20121103002033.GA18691@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121103002033.GA18691@srcf.ucam.org> (Matthew Garrett's message of "Sat, 3 Nov 2012 00:20:34 +0000") Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Alan Cox , James Bottomley , Eric Paris , Jiri Kosina , Oliver Neukum , Chris Friesen , Josh Boyer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Matthew Garrett writes: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:03:02PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> I don't want my system p0wned in the first place and I don't want to run >> windows. Why should I trust Microsoft's signing key? > > There's no reason to. Systems that don't trust Microsoft's signing key > have no reason to be concerned about Microsoft revocation. > Unfortunately, that's not the only set of people we have to worry > about. No reason to? How can I configure an off the shelf system originally sold with windows 8 installed to boot in UEFI secure boot mode using shim without trusting Microsoft's key? Eric