On Do, 07.04.22 10:53, Fedora Development ML (devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On 4/7/22 10:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Di, 05.04.22 17:38, Chris Murphy (lists(a)colorremedies.com) wrote:
>
> > When users have a suboptimal experience by default, it makes Fedora
> > look bad. We can't have security concerns overriding all other
> > concerns. But it's really pernicious to simultaneously say security is
> > important, but we're also not going to sign proprietary drivers. This
> > highly incentivizes the user to disable Secure Boot because that's so
> > much easier than users signing kernel modules and enrolling keys with
> > the firmware, and therefore makes the user *less safe*.
>
> Let me stress one thing though: Fedora *has* *no* working SecureBoot
> implementation. The initrd is not authenticated. It has no signatures,
> nothing.
Couldn't the other Fedora change about adding file signatures to the RPM
installed files be used to close this hole?. Enabling some policy at boot
that disallows execution on code not signed that is inside the initrd. I
think all code copied to the initrd must come from Fedora packages, maybe
the only exception are third party kernel modules.
You need to sign the whole thing, and figure out what to do about
configuration so that you can still configure the thing but also
authenticate it so that you know it is in order.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin