Discover, which I use for upgrades, reports problems with UEFI. There is an update, which Discover refuses to install. Discover reports this message: UEFI DBX : Version 217 : Released on 4/8/23 UEFI Secure Boot Forbidden Signature Database Insecure versions of software from Trend Micro, vmware, CPSD, Eurosoft, and New Horizon Datasys Inc were added to the list of forbidden signatures due to discovered security problems. This updates the dbx to the latest release from Microsoft. Before installing the update, fwupd will check for any affected executables in the ESP and will refuse to update if it finds any boot binaries signed with any of the forbidden signatures. ... It looks like there is a new version of the UEFI boot system, which can't be installed because of signature issues. Is this correct? Is it anything to worry about? Can anything be done to fix the issue? Is the issue likely to be fixed upstream? System Info: Operating System: Fedora Linux 37 KDE Plasma Version: 5.27.4 KDE Frameworks Version: 5.104.0 Qt Version: 5.15.8 Kernel Version: 6.2.9-200.fc37.x86_64 (64-bit) Graphics Platform: X11 Processors: 8 × Intel® Core™ i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz Memory: 15.5 GiB of RAM Graphics Processor: Mesa Intel® HD Graphics 4600 Manufacturer: ASUS Product Name: All Series -- Sincerely Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh(a)pacbell.net&gt; Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen. -- Einstein

On Sat, 2023-04-08 at 21:32 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 9:08 PM Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh(a)pacbell.net > <mailto:jonrysh@pacbell.net>> wrote: >> >> Discover, which I use for upgrades, reports problems with UEFI. There >> is an update, which Discover refuses to install. Discover reports >> this message: >> >> UEFI DBX : Version 217 : Released on 4/8/23 >> >> UEFI Secure Boot Forbidden Signature Database >> >> Insecure versions of software from Trend Micro, vmware, CPSD, >> Eurosoft, and New Horizon Datasys Inc were added to the list of >> forbidden signatures due to discovered security problems. This >> updates the dbx to the latest release from Microsoft. >> Before installing the update, fwupd will check for any affected >> executables in the ESP and will refuse to update if it finds any boot >> binaries signed with any of the forbidden signatures. >> ... >> >> It looks like there is a new version of the UEFI boot system, which >> can't be installed because of signature issues. Is this correct? Is >> it anything to worry about? Can anything be done to fix the issue? Is >> the issue likely to be fixed upstream? > > I don't use Discover. I use fwupdmgr directly. I have not seen > fwupdmgr refuse to update a component (sans no UEFI). Here's the > relevant piece of the script I run daily: > > if command -v fwupdmgr >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then >     if fwupdmgr get-devices 2>&1 | grep -q -c 'UEFI ESRT device' ; then >         echo "Updating firmware" >         fwupdmgr refresh --force 1>/dev/null && \ >             fwupdmgr update 1>/dev/null >     fi > fi > > I also noticed the db was updated today. Very interesting. After running by hand the parts of your script that test whether an update is necessary (It is.), I ran the actual update and got the following output. As you see, I replied "n"; would it be dangerous to try "Y"?

BTW: I've been seeing the error message for about a week.

On Sat, 2023-04-08 at 20:03 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: >>>> It looks like there is a new version of the UEFI boot system, which >>>> can't be installed because of signature issues. Is this correct? Is

>>> I also noticed the db was updated today. >> >> Very interesting. After running by hand the parts of your script that >> test whether an update is necessary (It is.), I ran the actual update >> and got the following output. As you see, I replied "n"; would it be >> dangerous to try "Y"? > > That sounds quite safe.  Do you even use any software from those > companies?  (Things that boot directly.) One of them may be the author my system's firmware. I don't know who wrote it.

>> BTW: I've been seeing the error message for about a week. > > What error message? The following message. I should have written "warning" rather than "error".