On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:56:03 -0700 JD <jd1008@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > FWIW, perhaps - just perhaps - this is an attempt by MS and redhat > (and perhaps others like Oracle), > to try an convince government customers that a system with a signed > bootloader and kernel and modules, provides for such greater security, > that the gov should spend the money to revamp all their installations. > > Given the atmosphere we live in today (be it real or fabricated), > and if my supposition re: the motive for a signed bootloader are true, > then it seems the strategy might just work - and the colluding parties > will get rich off of the taxpayers of course. The bits of government that want this sort of stuff are the bits of government who want to stop citizens having computers running arbitary software not approved by the state, Cory Doctrow dubbed it "the war on general purpose computing" and that is a very good summary of what it is about at that level. Having the state able to meddle in what OS can be run means law enforcement backdoors are much easier, state control of crypto is possible and so on. To some in power that is their dream. Now a signed bootloader has its uses, however in a properly designed system you would allow the user to import their own keys. DRM like this is all about monopoly power and hopefully it ends up with the regulators and Microsoft being hauled back over the coals in the European court. I am sure MS will use this for the Windows 9 era to say "See secure boot works for everyone, now make it mandatory". Matthew Garrett unintentionally just gave them everything they needed to continue that plan. Alan -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
