Re: [OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
On 05/06/12 19:26, Claudius Hubig wrote:
> Hello Camaleón,
> Camaleón <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft (I can't tell for the rest of the hardware
>> manufacturers because their position is not mentioned in detail
>> in the blog post) is forcing a needing for something I (and I
>> guess others) _don't need_, like TPM modules, using a password in
>> GRUB2, using encryption nor signing for safe code.
> If you don’t need that, you can disable secure boot and be happy.
> However, I welcome the fact that attacks on Windows will be made
> more difficult, since that also means smaller botnets, fewer
> vulnerable computers etc.
In a time where a Microsoft issued certificate is used to sign a
virus, can you still say that "signed by micorosft" means secure ?
Signature does not create security, nor trust, at best it transfers trust.