Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 17:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 05:48:31PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:52:44PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The first question is how many compromises do you need.  Without
> > > > co-operation from windows, you don't get to install something in the
> > > > boot system, so if you're looking for a single compromise vector, the
> > > > only realistic attack is to trick the user into booting a hacked linux
> > > > system from USB or DVD.
> > > 
> > > You run a binary. It pops up a box saying "Windows needs your permission 
> > > to continue", just like almost every other Windows binary that's any 
> > > use. Done.
> > 
> > And if all the loaders do some type of present user test on a virgin
> > system, how do you propose to get that message up there?
> 
> ? That's the message generated by the Windows access control mechanism 
> when you run a binary that requests elevated privileges.

So that's a windows attack vector using a windows binary? I can't really
see how it's relevant to the secure boot discussion then.

James



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/