> We're told that Fedora's bootloader is going to get signed – and by that, > that must mean "grub", right? No. A tiny loader before grub with the Microsoft key is the plan. That's actually technically quite smart as it means you don't have to keep going back to Microsoft. Of course in reality because EFI is buggy and full of work arounds you will. And since it's probably a revenue stream I can imagine Microsoft will be keen to revoke keys and charge lots of $99 whenever it can as well. > And, grub can boot an arbitrary Linux kernel, right? The signed loader would load a signed grub which would load a signed kernel which would load only signed modules (no vmware, no nvidia. no virtualbox, no 3rd party downloaded GPL kernel modules, no security patches applied by hand, no custom reconfigurations, no board workarounds, no tmapi on thinkpad). In practice in many cases it will also have to sign all the firmware that is loaded into the drivers so you won't be able to update the firmware. You'd also have to turn off the kernel debugger features, much of firewire, some X features, uvesafb, lrmi, dosemu (but not dosbox), systemtap, setserial, and a whole host of other things. You probably have to mandate SELinux as well and prevent anyone from setting certain attributes on packages that are not signed etc. There are some really non-obvious ones and I'm keeping them under my (free) hat until after Red Hat try this including a couple of gems I think I'll sit on until a RHEL with this "feature" is released. Also every time a hole is found Fedora will have to revoke that kernel, force everyone to upgrade or if they have an older unsupported kernel leave them stranded. Out of support releases are also an interesting problem. If a hole is found they need to revoke the key. If they do that the users machine is crippled. It's potentially a criminal matter in many EU states as well so whoever issues the revocation could end up in jail. Nobody is really too sure. This is all untested waters. > So, a virus that wants to compromise a signed, secure bootload chain, can't > it simply install Fedora's signed grub, configured to boot a bare-bones > Linux kernel, nothing will prevent that, right? Not it would just use a kernel hole and if it was targetting windows it would use the early bit of the kernel boot up, compromise itself at init (very early very quiet so basically invisible), and then bootstrap windows 8 either directly or virtualised while lying that the secure boot was done. > Red Hat's private key. The kernel will be configured to load only kernel > modules that are also signed by Red Hat's private key. OEMs that supply OEM > binary blobs, for stuff like RAID cards, etc, that are certified with RHEL, > will get Red Hat to sign their kernel modules for them, also for a token > certification key. That's the hood, welded shut, that's absolutely mandatory > for a secured bootloader to have any logical purpose, whatsoever. Correct - and you need to lock it down way more than that. Also I can't see Red Hat directly signing third party binary blobs. If it does that it implicitly believes they are lawful and also acquires some liability for them in they malfuction. > Fedora is not going to be a part of this. In order to boot Fedora, it will > be necessary to disable the secure bootload, on the hardware. It will be up to the Fedora Board to stop Red Hat corrupting the goals of the Fedora project in this way - or if they won't for people who dislike it to dump Fedora - particularly package maintainers. 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
