On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:54 AM, Samuel Sieb <samuel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/20/2018 03:41 AM, Tom H wrote: >> >> Ubuntu's using an MS sig. The difference between Fedora and Ubuntu is >> that the latter doesn't require that kernel modules be signed. > > If that's true, then I think they're in violation of the secure boot rules. > And even if not, it makes secure boot ineffective anyway. It's a matter of opinion. If MS, as the SB enforcer, thought that Ubuntu was violating SB, it'd have blacklisted its sig from being validated and chainloaded by the MS firmware sig. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
