[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kernel unsigned

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 02:51:29PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 14:51:29 +0200
> From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>
> To: Gerard ROBIN <g.robin3@free.fr>, debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: kernel unsigned
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> On 2019-10-03 12:05 +0200, Gerard ROBIN wrote:
> > Hello,
> > In my BULLSEYE box, when i make "apt upgrade" if a new kernel is installed
> > it is a signed kernel that is installed, but on my machine it is an unsigned
> > kernel that I chose to install.
> Why did you do that in the first place?
because I bought my machine without OS and there is only linux on my machine.

> > How can you force "apt" to install the unsigned kernel?
> > For example:
> > the kernel linux-image-5.2.0-2-amd64-unsigned is the kernel used.
> > "apt upgrade" installs the kernel linux-image-5.2.0-3-amd64 (signed)
> You could install linux-image-5.2.0-3-amd64-unsigned manually, but then
> you lose the linux-image-amd64 metapackage and will miss automatic
> upgrades to newer kernels which is probably not what you want.
I did not know that.

> What exactly bugs you about the signed kernel?  The kernel is so big
> that the extra signatures hardly make a difference.
I read somewhere that the signed kernel was for the "secure boot" of 
microsoft and I have nothing of microsoft on my machine, so that's why 
I installed the unsigned kernel.

Thank you for your clarification.

*  Created with "mutt 1.10.1"
*  under Debian Linux BULLSEYE

Reply to: