On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:59:42 +0100 "Bryn M. Reeves" <bmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06/01/2012 04:56 AM, JD 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. > > Afaik it's the other way around. The government customers have > mandated (via updated security standards) that operating systems > qualified for use in certain environments and duties must support > strong verification including code signing and checking. Follow where that came from - this is all part of a long term plan some of these big companies and their lobbyists are playing. The push to mandate it came from the people wanting to make tons of cash selling it. That's how corporate lobbying works in all sorts of areas. > > 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. > > I think Occam's razor applies here. I think so likewise - there are there who aspire to it but 'secure boot' in its current form straight forward corporate greed and monopoly playbooks. 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
