|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
I don't see why the Canonical keys are required. Why is required is *some* key
that would allow the user to sign his software. This doesn't need to be
Canonical keys.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- That depends - Authored by: pem on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
- That depends - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- Right. Except. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- Right. Except. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 08:17 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
The machine is preloaded with public keys of software that it will accept, e.g.,
Microsoft and Ubuntu. That allows it to run software that Microsoft signs (or
signed by people who buy signing keys that are signed by Microsoft) and software
that Ubuntu signs. The OEM doesn't meed to have Microsoft's or Ubuntu's private
key.
The OEM is free to preload a third public key and give out the private key for
that, which would allow the owner of the computer to compile software and sign
it so it could run. Or to provide a way for the owner of the computer to
generate their own key and load it. Either way would allow the OEM to
redistribute Canonical's GRUB binary under GPLv3.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
