Re: [GIT PULL] Load keys from signed PE binaries

Matthew Garrett
2013-02-26T03:28:49Z

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:25:08PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:13:38AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Because Microsoft have indicated that they'd be taking a reactive
> > approach to blacklisting and because, so far, nobody has decided to
> > write the trivial proof of concept that demonstrates the problem.
>
> Microsoft would take a severe hit both from a PR perspective, as well
> as incurring significant legal risks if they did that in certain
> jourisdictions --- in particular, I suspect in Europe, if Microsoft
> were to break the ability of Linux distributions from booting, it
> would be significantly frowned upon.

If a Linux vendor chose to knowingly breach the obligations they agreed
to, you don't think there'd be any PR hit?

> So Microsoft may have privately threatened this to certain Red Hat
> attendees (threats are cheap, but it's not obvious that they would
> necessarily follow through on this threat.

You're happy advising Linux vendors that they don't need to worry about
module signing because it's "not obvious" that Microsoft would actually
enforce the security model they've spent significant money developing
and advertising?

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org