From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:54:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20121102165456.GB9997@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1351760905.2391.19.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1351762703.2391.31.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1351763954.2391.37.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20121101202701.GB20817@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> <5092E361.7080901@genband.com> <20121102163302.GA6080@elf.ucw.cz> <1351875164.2439.42.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1351875164.2439.42.camel-sFMDBYUN5F8GjUHQrlYNx2Wm91YjaHnnhRte9Li2A+AAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Pavel Machek , Chris Friesen , Eric Paris , Jiri Kosina , Oliver Neukum , Alan Cox , Josh Boyer , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org 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 | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org