|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
And what really steams me is that (unless I'm mistaken, and please someone
correct me if I'm wrong) UEFI only guarantees that the operating system being
booted has been signed and is approved for boot; it does nothing to
guarantee the security of the operating system itself. So who cares if Windows
is signed? Will that make it any less vulnerable?? In other words, what does the
end user actually gain from UEFI if the booted OS is itself no more secure than
it was?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GrueMaster on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
One thing no one has factored into this yet is the GPLv3, specifically the
clause about being able to install or update gplv3 software already in the
system. This is part of the reason grub2 will not be used.
---
You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|